- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
hey dont blame me...Monifé wrote:Didn't know this was http://www.politics.ie
While I am all for a healthy debate and the majority of the time, would have the opposite opinion of Walrusgumble, there is no need to be cursing or calling people names.Morrisj wrote:2 b honest Mr wall grumble u r really full of shit i swear,go bk to ur previous n take a look of what u said abt Shatter n his connection with Israel,nw u bn attacked by 3 ppl,u r saying u ve respect 4 him,u really nd to cure ur madness 4real,take a look at Germany,Sweden e.t.c the right of their citizens comes 1st.Dermot Ahern in his regime brought Reverse discrimination n u must be really foolish thinkn il honestly post my age here,am only fooling u cos u r so foolish.Take ur story abt Zambrano to ECJ
i would not be so smug monife, if i were you. but by all means, point out what was stated that is incorrect.Monifé wrote:Didn't know this was http://www.politics.ie
It is clear that for some here, English is not their first language, as there is an hysterical use of words like "attack" and "bashing" as oppose to legitimate criticism. It is also clear that some on the boards do not know enough on their subject as they go into defensive mode when challenged.Morrisj wrote:2 b honest Mr wall grumble u r really full of shit i swear,go bk to ur previous n take a look of what u said abt Shatter n his connection with Israel,nw u bn attacked by 3 ppl,u r saying u ve respect 4 him,u really nd to cure ur madness 4real,take a look at Germany,Sweden e.t.c the right of their citizens comes 1st.Dermot Ahern in his regime brought Reverse discrimination n u must be really foolish thinkn il honestly post my age here,am only fooling u cos u r so foolish.Take ur story abt Zambrano to ECJ
What is that suppose to mean? Jeez, lighten up. It was only a joke.walrusgumble wrote:i would not be so smug monife, if i were you.Monifé wrote:Didn't know this was http://www.politics.ie
Never said you were wrong at all. Actually just skim read most of it, couldn't be bothered. Relax the cacks, it was only a joke.walrusgumble wrote: but by all means, point out what was stated that is incorrect.
You have been asked a question, you shoul stop avoiding it. I will repeat it again.Morrisj wrote:Lol Mr Wall Grumble where did i mention English is my 1st lang?xmkmdgmd thats my 1st lang ha.I am actually getting bored with ur stories,infact u r very good at twisting words to fool ppl.Take a look at d topic of d post u created 1st d spelling of ur Zambrano Mr Wgrumble d Englis h teacher or was that a typographical error?I wonder how u got d spelling wrong n write much about d case.Looking at d topic its clear to c,u created it becos u tot ppl like u,will join d train but u r surprise u got d opposite
It is not the ability to spell that I am criticising, I am not that petty. Its the use of hysterical words. It can take a while to read and re-read your posts, but I aint an angel my self.Morrisj wrote:And if u ve pro with my English how come u r able to reply back to me?lol
Dnt give me that shit u knew i wasn 20,u believed thats why u said son move on..I mentioned Sweden n fw others nt just Germany n do u know most Eu states do copy Ireland's harsh legislation counting down 4rm Dermot?Ireland copied Uk legislation n made it more strict to d extent even Uk had to copy the strict one bk 4rm Ireland also with fw member states.cn i ask u a ?Who took Metock's case to Ecj?even Zambrano's case, Ireland was
Metock case actually involved 4 sets of couples who took four separate judicial review proceedings. They were all lumped together as they all raised the same issue and had similar factual circumstances.walrusgumble wrote:It is not the ability to spell that I am criticising, I am not that petty. Its the use of hysterical words. It can take a while to read and re-read your posts, but I aint an angel my self.Morrisj wrote:And if u ve pro with my English how come u r able to reply back to me?lol
Dnt give me that shit u knew i wasn 20,u believed thats why u said son move on..I mentioned Sweden n fw others nt just Germany n do u know most Eu states do copy Ireland's harsh legislation counting down 4rm Dermot?Ireland copied Uk legislation n made it more strict to d extent even Uk had to copy the strict one bk 4rm Ireland also with fw member states.cn i ask u a ?Who took Metock's case to Ecj?even Zambrano's case, Ireland was
I said child move on because regardless of your age, you act like one on this boards with trite like my mind is more advance etc.
You mentioned 3. Germany and Sweden and one more country only. There were no "others". Germany would still be bigger than the two that you mentioned combined.
Ireland and the UK share an interest in Northern Ireland. It has a historic link, and long time common immigration policy. We are island nations in Europe. Its essesential that we have similar policies, whether we like it or not. UK have followed Ireland in very little, to be honest, maybe how we cope with the smoking ban.
Metock was a preliminary reference case. No one really brought us to court, bar the client. But it was the Irish High Courts decision not to decide on it (and inevitably go to the Supreme Court) and ask the ECJ for their view as caselaw from ECJ was conflicting. I think the last kind of freemovement of people case Ireland was a party to was in or around 1980's. (Ireland won) Zambrano invites countries to make submissions. Seriously, please do go and learn what the procedures are for Preliminary References.
Muttsnuts wrote:Metock case actually involved 4 sets of couples who took four separate judicial review proceedings. They were all lumped together as they all raised the same issue and had similar factual circumstances.walrusgumble wrote:It is not the ability to spell that I am criticising, I am not that petty. Its the use of hysterical words. It can take a while to read and re-read your posts, but I aint an angel my self.Morrisj wrote:And if u ve pro with my English how come u r able to reply back to me?lol
Dnt give me that shit u knew i wasn 20,u believed thats why u said son move on..I mentioned Sweden n fw others nt just Germany n do u know most Eu states do copy Ireland's harsh legislation counting down 4rm Dermot?Ireland copied Uk legislation n made it more strict to d extent even Uk had to copy the strict one bk 4rm Ireland also with fw member states.cn i ask u a ?Who took Metock's case to Ecj?even Zambrano's case, Ireland was
I said child move on because regardless of your age, you act like one on this boards with trite like my mind is more advance etc.
You mentioned 3. Germany and Sweden and one more country only. There were no "others". Germany would still be bigger than the two that you mentioned combined.
Ireland and the UK share an interest in Northern Ireland. It has a historic link, and long time common immigration policy. We are island nations in Europe. Its essesential that we have similar policies, whether we like it or not. UK have followed Ireland in very little, to be honest, maybe how we cope with the smoking ban.
Metock was a preliminary reference case. No one really brought us to court, bar the client. But it was the Irish High Courts decision not to decide on it (and inevitably go to the Supreme Court) and ask the ECJ for their view as caselaw from ECJ was conflicting. I think the last kind of freemovement of people case Ireland was a party to was in or around 1980's. (Ireland won) Zambrano invites countries to make submissions. Seriously, please do go and learn what the procedures are for Preliminary References.
In relation to those persons who do not have an existing residence in the State (so cannot change their status by attending the GNIB) and have to make a written application to the INIS, I would expect to wait at least six months for a decision and probably even more. The INIS moves at a snails pace at the best of times and with a sudden influx of appilcations, the Department will not be able to cope. There is also the general attitude of staff of the DoJ which never helps to expedite matters. That's not to say that they're all lazy, there is very much a civil service attitude prevalent in the DoJ in that nobody wants to stick their neck out and make decisions. Every decision has to be analysed and confirmed by the entire chain of command individually.
I only mention the 4 applicants as it appeared that people had not realised this fact.walrusgumble wrote:
"Metock case actually involved 4 sets of couples who took four separate judicial review proceedings. They were all lumped together as they all raised the same issue and had similar factual circumstances."
Yes, we know that. No one is in disputes with that fact. The High Court, after submissions from both sides, decided to refer the matter to the ECJ. Is there any particular point to highlighting that? Is how the case went before the ECJ really that relevant? Genuine question.
" those persons who do not have an existing residence in the State (so cannot change their status by attending the GNIB) and have to make a written application to the INIS, I would expect to wait at least six months for a decision and probably even more. The INIS moves at a snails pace at the best of times and with a sudden influx of appilcations, the Department will not be able to cope. There is also the general attitude of staff of the DoJ which never helps to expedite matters. That's not to say that they're all lazy, there is very much a civil service attitude prevalent in the DoJ in that nobody wants to stick their neck out and make decisions. Every decision has to be analysed and confirmed by the entire chain of command individually"
I would agree with that. But it is clearly not what a politican (shatter) clearly indicated in his Statement in March. I would also go as far as to suggest that he will in fact have a wait and see policy regarding the pending High Court cases. Some of the State argument might suggest that McCarthy limits Zambrano (thats what I have heard anyway) That is the basis of my criticism of others who put too much premature faith in ANY minister for justice. To interfere even with the outcome of the actual pending cases would be a breach of separation of powers. So, he is not the messiah , yet.
I will be holding those who will inevitable "attack" Shatter (for whatever reason) in the future by reminding them of their blind but optimistic support in his early days.
Taking the Stamp 1-3's aside (yes proactive but hardly significant as it was the right thing to do), and in full agreement with what you have said regarding what is likely to happen, it goes against what Shatter had orginally stated in his statement.Muttsnuts wrote:I only mention the 4 applicants as it appeared that people had not realised this fact.walrusgumble wrote:
"Metock case actually involved 4 sets of couples who took four separate judicial review proceedings. They were all lumped together as they all raised the same issue and had similar factual circumstances."
Yes, we know that. No one is in disputes with that fact. The High Court, after submissions from both sides, decided to refer the matter to the ECJ. Is there any particular point to highlighting that? Is how the case went before the ECJ really that relevant? Genuine question.
" those persons who do not have an existing residence in the State (so cannot change their status by attending the GNIB) and have to make a written application to the INIS, I would expect to wait at least six months for a decision and probably even more. The INIS moves at a snails pace at the best of times and with a sudden influx of appilcations, the Department will not be able to cope. There is also the general attitude of staff of the DoJ which never helps to expedite matters. That's not to say that they're all lazy, there is very much a civil service attitude prevalent in the DoJ in that nobody wants to stick their neck out and make decisions. Every decision has to be analysed and confirmed by the entire chain of command individually"
I would agree with that. But it is clearly not what a politican (shatter) clearly indicated in his Statement in March. I would also go as far as to suggest that he will in fact have a wait and see policy regarding the pending High Court cases. Some of the State argument might suggest that McCarthy limits Zambrano (thats what I have heard anyway) That is the basis of my criticism of others who put too much premature faith in ANY minister for justice. To interfere even with the outcome of the actual pending cases would be a breach of separation of powers. So, he is not the messiah , yet.
I will be holding those who will inevitable "attack" Shatter (for whatever reason) in the future by reminding them of their blind but optimistic support in his early days.
I think that Shatter has been quite proactive and most definitely more proactive than previous Ministers for Justice. The announcement that persons can attend the GNIB to change their existing status is definitely a welcome proactive step.
I would suggest that McCarthy does limit Zambrano in some respects. It limits the concept of EU Citizenship as a basis for EU Treaty rights (which was suggested in Zambrano), in that it confirms that Zambrano is the ONLY scenario whereby EU Treaty Rights can be invoked without the necessary cross border movement element. However, it does not conclusively answer all the questions raised by Zambrano and indeed raises more questions on the dual citizenship issue e.g. can a UK AND Irish national rely on EU Treaty Rights at all if they reside in Ireland or England?
In relation to existing cases featuring Zambrano issues, these can be dealt with by the Minister. It is most definitely not a breach of the principle of separation of powers for the Minister for Justice to offer to settle those judicial review cases which clearly fall within the four corners of Zambrano. This has been done in the past. The fact is that all Zambrano cases are currently on hold. I think that there will have to be several cases heard (with judgements that definitively answer the questions raised by Zambrano) before some definite consensus is come to by the judiciary. WHen that happens, the Minister will take a definite stance and the offers to settle will start coming through to clear the backlog of cases.
To answer your question as to who took the Metock case....Morrisj wrote:I asked u a simple ?who tk Metock to ECJ n u started giving me ur bullshit explanation hw the dept took it to d Irish Court blabla..were u tipsy or u purposely decided nt 2 gv me a direct answer?4. fsake blockhead r the two whatever nt part of Ireland,i mean d Dept n d Court so basically Ireland took Metock case to ECJ simple that was d str8 answer i wanted 4rm u.Nw y didnt Germany or d rest Eu states had that problem of taking a case like that to ECJ?I guess it's because Ireland always make strict principles implementing Eu Law let alone their own National Law. Now other Eu member states are making strict principles just like Ireland i.e copying from Ireland and yet you say Germany r more strict? did u say that because u r also worked in their Immigration Department? or just said that cos they require people to speak Dutch?
Well thats gone now look at this, with this i confirmed u r a fan of Dermot Ahern and u r nt happy Shatter is going against some of Dermot's Policy.
You said Shatter should tell his lawyers to settle the current high court cases regarding Zambrano... r u 4king serious?
R u drunk or what? Dermot caused those mess and Shatter is trying to clean them up, we should be glad but for you u r nt happy.
Shatter decided to take a fast approach with d zambrano case to avoid liable families waiting and is that not a good step? and for your information some applicants regarding the High Court cases has been granted residency so what u 4king talking abt?
I dnt wish to answer ur rest ?s cos they r pointless and to be honest i dnt spend my precious time reading your stories.......they r boring
and FYI we r looking for vital information regarding Zambrano not complain so take ur arguement back tp Politics.ie it suits u better or take it 2 ECJ thats better.
And what? Miss me? lol This is the first opportunity to respondMorrisj wrote:I asked u a simple ?who tk Metock to ECJ n u started giving me ur bullshit explanation hw the dept took it to d Irish Court blabla..were u tipsy or u purposely decided nt 2 gv me a direct answer?4. fsake blockhead r the two whatever nt part of Ireland,i mean d Dept n d Court so basically Ireland took Metock case to ECJ simple that was d str8 answer i wanted 4rm u.Nw y didnt Germany or d rest Eu states had that problem of taking a case like that to ECJ?I guess it's because Ireland always make strict principles implementing Eu Law let alone their own National Law. Now other Eu member states are making strict principles just like Ireland i.e copying from Ireland and yet you say Germany r more strict? did u say that because u r also worked in their Immigration Department? or just said that cos they require people to speak Dutch?
Well thats gone now look at this, with this i confirmed u r a fan of Dermot Ahern and u r nt happy Shatter is going against some of Dermot's Policy.
You said Shatter should tell his lawyers to settle the current high court cases regarding Zambrano... r u 4king serious?
R u drunk or what? Dermot caused those mess and Shatter is trying to clean them up, we should be glad but for you u r nt happy.
Shatter decided to take a fast approach with d zambrano case to avoid liable families waiting and is that not a good step? and for your information some applicants regarding the High Court cases has been granted residency so what u 4king talking abt?
I dnt wish to answer ur rest ?s cos they r pointless and to be honest i dnt spend my precious time reading your stories.......they r boring
and FYI we r looking for vital information regarding Zambrano not complain so take ur arguement back tp Politics.ie it suits u better or take it 2 ECJ thats better.
Morrisj wrote:and
I could not have put it better myself. Had I read your post first, I would not have bothered responding. Be careful though, you might get attacked for pointing out that the politcos of Europe don't tend to agree with the ECJ. I know I have.Muttsnuts wrote:To answer your question as to who took the Metock case....Morrisj wrote:I asked u a simple ?who tk Metock to ECJ n u started giving me ur bullshit explanation hw the dept took it to d Irish Court blabla..were u tipsy or u purposely decided nt 2 gv me a direct answer?4. fsake blockhead r the two whatever nt part of Ireland,i mean d Dept n d Court so basically Ireland took Metock case to ECJ simple that was d str8 answer i wanted 4rm u.Nw y didnt Germany or d rest Eu states had that problem of taking a case like that to ECJ?I guess it's because Ireland always make strict principles implementing Eu Law let alone their own National Law. Now other Eu member states are making strict principles just like Ireland i.e copying from Ireland and yet you say Germany r more strict? did u say that because u r also worked in their Immigration Department? or just said that cos they require people to speak Dutch?
Well thats gone now look at this, with this i confirmed u r a fan of Dermot Ahern and u r nt happy Shatter is going against some of Dermot's Policy.
You said Shatter should tell his lawyers to settle the current high court cases regarding Zambrano... r u 4king serious?
R u drunk or what? Dermot caused those mess and Shatter is trying to clean them up, we should be glad but for you u r nt happy.
Shatter decided to take a fast approach with d zambrano case to avoid liable families waiting and is that not a good step? and for your information some applicants regarding the High Court cases has been granted residency so what u 4king talking abt?
I dnt wish to answer ur rest ?s cos they r pointless and to be honest i dnt spend my precious time reading your stories.......they r boring
and FYI we r looking for vital information regarding Zambrano not complain so take ur arguement back tp Politics.ie it suits u better or take it 2 ECJ thats better.
4 Applicants including Mr Metock took Judicial Review proceedings against the State as they had been refused permission to remain on the basis of EU Treaty Rights. They had been refused because they did not not have prior lawful residence in another EU State before applying for permissiont to remain in Ireland. THis was a requiremnet stipulated by the Irish legislation that introduced Directive 2004/38 into Irish Law.
In the High Court, the question arose as to whether the Irish requirement of prior lawful residence was permitted by Directive 2004/38. The HC could not answer that question definitively without asking the ECJ's opinion.
Therefore, who sent Metock to the ECJ? It was Judge Finlay Geogheghan in the High Court.
It should be noted that the Irish government (and indeed most of the Governments of the EU) fought this tooth and nail in the ECJ. You'll note from the written judgement that many EU Member states made oral submissions and these would all have been arguing against the applicants case.
I agree.Obie wrote:Mr Shatters has shown tremendous leadership, courage, and a great degree of fairness, for which he must be commended. He has been proactive in not just words but also in action . Following the judgement, he instructed his department to undertake an urgent review of all affected cases, without delays, and to look at the possibility of conceding the pending court cases, in the interest of the children concerned and to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. That in my book, is a true symbol of leadership , integrity , and openess, irrespective of your personal views.
As someone who claimed to be a past civil servent , on the department's payroll, i will expect you to appreciate that these reviews of cases involves people in different countries ,and cannot be undertaken overnight.
The previous government changed the offensive legislation 4 days after the judgement in metock was passed and re-started the status quo of harrassing and withholding the rights of genuine couples. Behind the scenes plotting a coup against the logical and fair conclusion of the honourable judges, which was not a new law, but a proper interpretation of the treaty they signed up to and for. Shame on them..
Long life Mr Shatters, keep up the good job and i will vote for FG in next election. beloved must be put to death and buried for good.
I don't want to get into the Jia and Akrich debate as Metock has clarified the position there where the waters had been very muddy indeed.Obie wrote:McDowell is an evil man, whose main goal in life was to oppress and distabilise the lives of hardworking and for the most part, law abiding immigrant, the same was Ahern. Jia overruled Akrich fullstop, no ifs or buts. The fact that UK, Ireland, Denmark and Finland of the 27 states did not see it that way does not change this fact. Despite the court stating Mrs Jia was lawfully resident in Sweden at the time of her application, does not mean they would have disqualified her if she wasn't. For nearly all the memberstates, a visitors visa is not considered resident, nevermind lawful residence for the purpose of making an in country residence application They were departing from Akrich, they rejected the advocate general's opinion which supported a restrictive approach.
What Ireland was doing was actually ignoring jia, they went far beyond the UK. Even people who were lawfully resident in Ireland were rejected on grounds that they have never resided lawfully in another memberstate, which was a blatant contept for court ruling and utter disregard for the community institutions.
Their wicked and malicious actions costed the Irish taxpayers thousands of euros in court fees, compensation and bringing the affected families back to Ireland. For a country like Ireland at it knees, such money could have been better utilised. It demonstrates incompetence of the minister at the highest degree.
Mr Shatters step is the most sensible approach, he learns from others mistake, he is not like those FF CLOWNS, who goes back and lick their vomits, like dogs. For example look at the fiasco regarding the change from stamp 4 to stamp 3 for family member awaiting a decision on their EU 1 Application. This was thankfully, swiftly abolished by the courts, immediately. These are all indication of systematic and blatant disregard for the law.
I reiterate that zambrano is here to stay. There is absolutely no need for further interpretation, which i am confident Mr Shatters understands. Memberstate can only derogate from their duty on grounds of public policy, public health or public security. It is about time you grasp this reality. It might be a shock to you, but it is here for the long haul. It will be better for us all to get use to it.