Change font size
It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:21 am


Forum lockedPost a reply Page 1 of 3   [ 40 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Final insult / Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:27 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
"The European Union's top court," reports the BBC, "has ruled that non-EU nationals married to EU citizens are entitled to live in their spouse's country." It goes on to tell us that the court has overruled a law in the Republic of Ireland, which grants residency only to those who have previously lived in an EU member state.

This is our old friend Directive 2004/38/EC again, on which the court relies for its judgement.

View full article here

and here

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:53 am
Posts: 1391
Location: England
Yup, that's just what my £140 a year TV tax is for, to make sure I am kept blissfully unaware of the things my government do that I might disapprove of but fits with the Beeb's agenda.

So there we go, the UK doesn't have power over its own immigration policy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:38 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:08 pm
Posts: 6651
But, but, but ... the Tories have promised to get tough on the immigration mess.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:07 pm 

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 6700
Quote:
the Tories have promised to get tough on the immigration mess.


Hrrumph, savaged by bunnies...

_________________
If you don't get grumpy as you grow older then you aren't paying attention


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:07 pm 
" ... the Tories have promised to get tough on the immigration mess."

And Labour promised us a referendum.

To paraphrase both the judge (and my MP in a letter to me) - there can be no legitimate expectation from a manifesto pledge.

I know who I'm working and voting for. Apparently we are fascist scum? Sticks and stones.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:20 pm 

Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:15 am
Posts: 121
Location: Continental Europe
A Dutch court just recently struck down certain immigration restrictions on marriage migration from outside the EU. Its ruling was based on the same directive I believe. Removed were language requirements, age requirements and income requirements.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:25 pm 
The facts as reported here are confused. Mr Akrich lost his case before the ECJ. The Metock case didn't rely on the Akrich decision. The Directive has a provision that allows the UK and all Member States to preclude from reliance on its provisions anyone who enages in abuse of rights or fraud in seeking to assert claimed rights. The families in the Metock case were all found by the Irish authorities and Court to be bona fide families, and there was no question of abuse or fraud. The Directive seems well designed to enable States to distinguish between real families of EU citizens, who should get certain rights, and sham families of EU citizens, who should not. It is, of course, not designed to distinguish between those families' skin colour. Assuming States properly apply the built-in safe guards against abuse and fraud, where's the difficulty with this judgment?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:53 am
Posts: 1391
Location: England
Helen S wrote:
But, but, but ... the Tories have promised to get tough on the immigration mess.


I'm sure they'd be told they don't have this or other power to which case they'd simply shrug their shoulders. The British people would still be in the same position: bent over!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:52 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
EUWatcher wrote:
The facts as reported here are confused. Mr Akrich lost his case before the ECJ. The Metock case didn't rely on the Akrich decision. The Directive has a provision that allows the UK and all Member States to preclude from reliance on its provisions anyone who enages in abuse of rights or fraud in seeking to assert claimed rights. The families in the Metock case were all found by the Irish authorities and Court to be bona fide families, and there was no question of abuse or fraud. The Directive seems well designed to enable States to distinguish between real families of EU citizens, who should get certain rights, and sham families of EU citizens, who should not. It is, of course, not designed to distinguish between those families' skin colour. Assuming States properly apply the built-in safe guards against abuse and fraud, where's the difficulty with this judgment?


I am sorry – you are wholly wrong. If you can't understand the judgement, look at the Janet and John versions: here, here and here.

Further, the court relied on the Akrich case in the sense that it was part of the background to the case. The court itself cited the case, as here:

Quote:
The Court considers that its judgment in the Akrich case, in which it ruled that, in order to benefit from the rights of entry into and residence in a Member State, the non-Community spouse of a Union citizen must be lawfully resident in a Member State when he moves to another Member State in the company of a Union citizen, must be reconsidered. The benefit of such rights cannot depend on prior lawful residence of the spouse in another Member State.


To the extent that it "reconsidered" its judgement, however, you are partially right, although this is part of the incrementalism of the ECJ. The word "developed" might have been better, and I will insert that in its place.

As to my "difficulty" with this judgement, in the first instance it over-rides the decisions of a "sovereign" member state. Secondly, there were no "families" real or otherwise before the appellants entered Ireland. They acquired their rights by falsely entering Ireland as asylum seekers and then evaded deportation by marrying citizens of EU member states.

This gives license to asylum-seekers to enter EU member states with the intention of seeking marriage in order to circumvent immigration rules.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:41 pm 
So it's agreed that the government is conniving with the EU to allow anyone who gets here by any means to stay here provided that he can contrive a marriage, by any means. It's also agreed that the Tories would do nothing about it. Given that UKIP is the permitted, ineffective licensed extremist where EU matters are concerned, it would appear that the list of political parties which actually would do something about the EU and immigration has been reduced by elimination down to ........one. I intend to vote for that one party - any real reasons why I shouldn't? NB that it's not UKIP.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:53 pm 
I see where you're coming from alright. In Akrich, though, the ECJ essentially ruled that Akrich could not benefit from the issue in the main proceedings because he was not lawfully resident in a Member State when he moved to the second State. The remaining issue was that the UK still had to consider the family's rights to privacy & family life, as provided by the ECHR. Those rights aren't absolute. The ruling was just that the UK had to consider them.

This is the punchline from Akrich:

"1. In order to be able to benefit in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings from the rights provided for in Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, a national of a non-Member State married to a citizen of the Union must be lawfully resident in a Member State when he moves to another Member State to which the citizen of the Union is migrating or has migrated.

"2. Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 is not applicable where the national of a Member State and the national of a non-Member State have entered into a marriage of convenience in order to circumvent the provisions relating to entry and residence of nationals of non-Member States.

"3. Where the marriage between a national of a Member State and a national of a non-Member State is genuine, the fact that the spouses installed themselves in another Member State in order, on their return to the Member State of which the former is a national, to obtain the benefit of rights conferred by Community law is not relevant to an assessment of their legal situation by the competent authorities of the latter State.

"4. Where a national of a Member State married to a national of a non-Member State with whom she is living in another Member State returns to the Member State of which she is a national in order to work there as an employed person and, at the time of her return, her spouse does not enjoy the rights provided for in Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 because he has not resided lawfully on the territory of a Member State, the competent authorities of the first-mentioned Member State, in assessing the application by the spouse to enter and remain in that Member State, must none the less have regard to the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, provided that the marriage is genuine."

And I can see the concern with the ECJ decision overriding the laws of a sovereign state. But Ireland agreed to the principle of free movement years ago. And it has agreed to the principle of EU citizenship. So it's a case of Irish laws that obstruct these principles being overridden. I can understand a disagreement with this, but as Ireland agreed to be bound by these principles at European level, it would have to leave the EU if it doesn't want any of its domestic laws that are at odds with these principles to be found incompatible with EU law.

I think it's unclear whether it's right to say they entered Ireland falsley. They may have been refused asylum, but there's a leap to say they entered falsely. They may well have had serious claims that simply weren't successful. Between refugees and sham asylum applicants there are many people in real difficulty who are may not be, legally speaking, refugees.

The final matter is whether they sought marriage in order to evade deportation. I think the facts were that they definitely had not done this - that the marriages were not shams. If it was the case that they were seeking such marriages of convenience in order to evade deportation and circumvent immigration rules, the EU directive's provisions could have been used to exclude them on that basis. And that can still be done in any case.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:16 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
You talk glibly about "Ireland" agreeing to the principle of freedom of movement ... although here we are actually talking about the freedom of establishment, which is an altogether different thing.

The truth, more like, is that the political classes agreed and the population as a whole largely acquiesced on the basis of assurances given, compounded by a hefty dose of misinformation and ignorance. If this was a medical issue, you would have a hard time arguing that "informed consent" had been given, without which no agreement can be considered valid.

Certainly, there is very little popular agreement for the scale of immigration to which Ireland is currently exposed, and only latterly have the ramifications of the treaty obligligations become apparent.

As to the "false asylum", it is highly improbable that these appellants were innocents at large. The fact that they came to Ireland for asylum - which has a reputation for being a "soft touch" - is a strong indication that they were trying it on, and knew how to work the system. In law, they should claim asylum at the first country they reach after leaving their own.

It is highly unlikely that Ireland was their first port of call and, if it was, why did they pick that country? In theory, asylum seekers are supposed to be in some distress and, on the basis that "beggars cannot be chosers" the fact that they were able to - and did - make a choice suggests a certain premeditation which is not entirely compatible with the image of persons oppressed seeking refuge.

And nor is it the case that these appellants were unaided - they are the front edge of a highly organised immigrant support system, which has its own agenda. My presumption is that these people knew exactly what they were doing, and have been counselled all along on how to circumvent Irish law.

As to the Metock marriage, it was undoubtedly genuine - the ECJ judgement gives us these details:

Quote:
Mr Metock, a national of Cameroon, arrived in Ireland on 23 June 2006 and applied for asylum. His application was definitively refused on 28 February 2007. Ms Ngo Ikeng, born a national of Cameroon, has acquired United Kingdom nationality. She has resided and worked in Ireland since late 2006. Mr Metock and Ms Ngo Ikeng met in Cameroon in 1994 and have been in a relationship since then. They have two children, one born in 1998 and the other in 2006. They were married in Ireland on 12 October 2006. On 6 November 2006 Mr Metock applied for a residence card as the spouse of a Union citizen working and residing in Ireland. The application was refused by decision of the Minister for Justice of 28 June 2007, on the ground that Mr Metock did not satisfy the condition of prior lawful residence in another Member State required by Regulation 3(2) of the 2006 Regulations. Mr Metock, Ms Ngo Ikeng and their children brought proceedings against that decision.


As such, this has all the hallmarks of a carefully orchestrated ploy - an attempt deliberately to circumvent and undermine Irish law and superimpose EU law, aided by those with the longstanding agenda of promoting political integration, one which I find wholly offensive.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:30 am
Posts: 3172
Location: portugal/germany
We are mugs...and worse. We are suicidal mugs. Check on the Portuguese word 'Saudade'.

_________________
Know thine enemy..........The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:19 am 

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 6700
Quote:
Check on the Portuguese word 'Saudade'.


Ok, I'll just ring Ronaldo.....

_________________
If you don't get grumpy as you grow older then you aren't paying attention


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Taking us for mugs
PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:59 pm 
ENNUI WARNING: Watch out.

OK, let's take the loss of self-control, the jumping up and down, the smashing of all objects near to hand, the bright red face and mad staring bulging eyes, the spittle-splashed walls, the uninterrupted stream of foul-mouthed expletives...... for granted. I've done all that, notionally anyway.

Now that I have calmed down, notionally, I'd like to make a general comment on the operations of these shit-faced legal types—the ECJ's crooked judges—and those who made these twisted laws.
[CORRECTION: In light of the subsequent criticism by RAENORTH ("the man") I have amended the sentence above so as not to let my loose spleen-venting misdirect. JA :)]

I think it is useful to look at what is happening here by way of a mathematical parallel.

Here's a quick and dirty setting of some background.

For various reasons investigations into the foundations of mathematics really took off in the late nineteenth century and culminated, for the purpose here anyway, in the first half of the twentieth century. The upshot was that the whole of mathematics could be constructed as a so-called formal system. In this case the formal system consisted of:
(1) a set of axioms (Zermelo-Fraenkel, if you're interested), or postulates if you prefer, about basic entities (actually these are undefined as no one gives a damn what they “really” are, and to define them would involve an infinite regression anyway); and
(2) a system of logic, or rules of inference.
Theorems about, or relationships among, the basic entities (and subsequent entities defined from the basic entities) were then to be deduced (i.e. proved) by means of the system of logic. That was it. The whole of mathematics was subsequently (re)built on that foundation.

It should be mentioned that the basic entities, though undefined within the system, become defined when a particular application of the system is sought. It is then up to the user (physicists, statisticians etc) to make sure his definitions (strictly, interpretations), which attach real-world meanings to the system's entities hold good. But that's outside the realm of mathematics.

Anyway, this enterprise was very successful and, incidentally, threw up some very surprising results, such as that not every true statement ('proposition' or 'theorem') made within such a formal system was deducible (provable) within the system, but these are not relevant to the point I want to make here.

One rather mundane* result, however, is relevant. It concerns the all-important consistency of a system. A system is said to be consistent if no contradiction can be deduced within it, and inconsistent otherwise. If you can deduce both P and not P, where P is some statement, then that's a contradiction, and the system is inconsistent.

The point about an inconsistent system is that then ANY statement can be deduced within it and so can its negation. Such a system is therefore completely useless as every statement is provable, including blatant falsehoods.** (Incidentally, that any proposition can be deduced from a falsehood was also know to antiquity.)

Mathematicians were therefore very concerned to be sure their systems were consistent. But developments in that direction are another story.

So what's all this got to do with the ECJ?

Well, the legal types operate their legal system exactly as if it were an applied formal system in the sense above. They 'deduce' their rulings from their 'axioms' (the basic laws, or whatever one might call them) and possibly from case law, or whatever, which ultimately, one presumes, was 'deduced' in the same way — i.e. with everything ultimately coming from basic laws.

However, unlike the mathematicians, these jokers make no great effort to ensure that the different laws are consistent. In fact, on the contrary, some of the laws are obviously inconsistent with others when they are made. Worse, they introduce new undefined terms willy-nilly (later to be 'interpreted' or 'clarified' by these mediaeval mystic judges). So what you have here is a complete dog's dinner of a system. And the plain fact is that any old rubbish can be 'deduced' (ruled) within it.

These crooks know only too damn well that their laws are exquisitely inconsistent. They are inconsistent by design. These slimy bastards and their nation-destroying eurocrat chums want the freedom to ‘deduce’ whatever they want, whenever they want. And that is the way they do it.

I wouldn't wipe my arse with the paper their judgements are written on. And neither should you.

It's worth noting that the more laws you introduce the greater the chance of inconsistencies arising, especially if you have no programme to eliminate them. On a mundane level, with such things as Statutory Instruments you come can across inconsistencies between them. These are 'resolved' by taking a case to court to get a poncy judge to pontificate on them and give his 'ruling', just like a witch doctor delivers his 'wisdom'. What a farce this whole primitive business is. And it really is primitive.

In practice, the only way to resolve these issues is by having recourse to the spirit of the law as it was intended, taking into account the circumstances in which it was made and the circumstances for which it was drawn up. Rigidly holding to the letter of the law in changed (unforeseen) circumstances produces nonesense, which was NOT the intention, one presumes (or should one?), of the original drafters, but is nevertheless a 'technique' exploited by charlatans. Examples would include 19th century laws on asylum and (possible?) laws on nationality granted by virtue of place of birth. Mass transportation in those days just wasn't envisaged and so the practical drafting saw convenient and workable definitions, for those times anyway, could be had by what we now see as very simplistic means. The crooked legal voo-doo merchants seem always to be at pains to avoid mentioning such considerations though. Mention of them would serve only to defeat their attacks on the rest of us.

These people are fit only to be burnt at the stake.



* Not everyone at the time thought it was mundane. In fact, some didn't believe it. There's a story (apocryphal? probably not but I don't know) about Bertrand Russell, a prime mover in these developments, remarking that given any false statement he could prove any other statement whatever. McTaggart was incredulous and challenged Russell over the dinner table to prove that if 1+1 = 1 then he (Russell) was the Pope. After a moment Russell replied, "I am one, and the Pope is one. Therefore the Pope and I are one. So I am the Pope."

** For those who might be interested: Let the symbol → denote implication (i.e. meaning "implies"). If some proposition P and its negation, not P (written as ~P), are derivable within the system then given that P → (~P → Q) is a tautology for any propositions P and Q (i.e. it's always true whatever truth values P and Q take), it follows, with a couple of shots*** of modus ponens, that Q is derivable too. And Q can be anything you like, such as "everyone must give me £1000 each year" or "the whole world has a right to come to live in your house and you can't do a damn thing about it.... legally."

*** Like this:
Shot 1: P and P → (~P → Q) implies (~P → Q). [Assuming P is true/deducible, and it is—by assumption (of the contradiction). Ha ha.]
Shot 2: So ~P and (~P → Q) implies Q. [Again, if ~P is true/deducible, and it is—by assumption.]


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum lockedPost a reply Page 1 of 3   [ 40 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net