My reasons for Voting No

ixtlan

turgon wrote: »

Indeed.

I find it funny watching the debate on Boards here in light of my position on the Treaty, having changed from a No to a Yes. I didnt change my position because of the guarantees or some such, I changed because I realized the Treaty was a lot better and that what id been saying was stupid. What I find funny is that my view on most things - the legitimacy of a second referendum, the type democracy we need in Europe etc - have all changed as well. Which makes me personally believe that people don't vote No because they think a second referendum is bad, rather, they think a second referendum is bad because theyre voting No.

Actually since it's relevant to the thread, would you like to go into a little more detail about your conversion?

I am quite interested. It seems very rare that anyone changes their mind on either side, or perhaps what I mean is that it's rare for someone who has debated the treaty to change. I get the impression that even if there is a yes, it will come through some people voting who didn't vote before, and some changing their vote who really had not given it much consideration the first time around. I say that with respect to the No voters here, who are debating the issues and who have generally given it much consideration (though IMHO it's ill-guided).

Ix.

Tim Robbins

KINGVictor wrote: »

5.Making Ireland vote again on the same treaty it rejected.

There should never have been a referendum in the first place. It's just more waste of money to ask ignorant people to make decisions on things they don't understand.

KINGVictor

brianthebard wrote: »

To bring it back on topic, OP how do you think points one and two could be addressed to improve the situation to your liking? Would it be possible?

The answer in my opinion would be formulating a framework where the citizens of Europe are duely consulted before any proposals or policies are implemented.The current state of affairs is shambolic to say the least.

I still disagree with folks that say that say that the concept of the EU was not primarily of economic integration,I agree that it would be naive to think economic objectives can be realised without some measure of political will/structure but not when it would decide for us how many hours workers can work in a week ,how many immigrants we must allow into our country,overturning decisions of national supreme courts etc...such practises would only lead to its implosion.

I noticed that even the hardest supporters of the EU(in its current state) seem to be avoiding the Immigration point raised.I am not to sure whether immigration is part of the Lisbon treaty but what I know is that the future plans of the EU as regards immigration is frightening.In the Eu freedom of movement directive ,EU nationals and their family have the right to move to any country as long as they prove they are seeking employment.
The Eu has on numeruous occasions humiliated member countries trying to protect their boarders by overturning decisions made lawfully by National Immigration bodies.A classic example is the Surinder Singh route to Immigration.
http://webdb.lse.ac.uk/gender/Casefinaldetail.asp?id=118&pageno=7

This essentially means that if an Irish man is dating an illegal Immigrant in Ireland and the partner is deported from Ireland for commiting a crime ,they could go and live in The Uk and come back to Ireland in six months and live legally in this country .

There have been cases of fake marraiges in which Ireland made a complaint to the EU officially and up till today ..no concrete steps have be taken to put an end to it.

Currently there are plans to introduce BLUE cards for non-eu nationals that would enable them work anywhere in Europe.
The whole thing is just very overwhelming and the truth is that a lot of people are uncomfortable with it.The Eu is a splendid idea in economic terms but when it decided to start interfering in national matters,it becomes a nuinsance.

Daftendirekt

KINGVictor wrote: »

The answer in my opinion would be formulating a framework where the citizens of Europe are duely consulted before any proposals or policies are implemented.The current state of affairs is shambolic to say the least.

But isn't that the point of the Parliament? The people of the member states appoint representatives to speak for them. Granted, you seem to be favouring a system of direct democracy, but do you apply this to government at the national level as well? By which I mean, do you think a referendum should be held to pass every proposal the government puts forward?

turgon

ixtlan wrote: »

Actually since it's relevant to the thread, would you like to go into a little more detail about your conversion?

Well obviously when it comes to my switching from No to Yes on Lisbon, the biggest change has been myself, and by that I mean my outlook and what I value, rather than anything in the Treaty itself.

I originally voted No for two reasons. I outlined this in a letter to Micheal Martin (to which I received an extremely courteous reply):

1. The militarization of the EU
2. Not enough democracy introduced

Which, held in isolation, were, and possibly are, valid reasons to vote No. And by valid I mean I could quote the Treaty in my defense.

I have since realized the, taken as a whole, the changes the Treaty bring about are positive. For example, the fact that the Treaty doesn't go far enough with democracy, it is still more democratic than before.


There is the important issue here, though, and this is where I begin to theorize. Fundamentally, I believe that most No proponents aren't anti the Lisbon treaty for any reasons, rather, they are attracted only by the very idea of being anti the treaty and what it entails. "What redeems it is the idea only", as Joseph Conrad would say.

Ok, so what do I mean by this? Basically many people aren't anti the Treaty for tangible reasons, and all the reasons they give can be easily dismissed. Despite this, they continue to be against it. Take, for instance, the Coir group, who 2 weeks ago had a poster "EU, get you hands off our unborn," despite the fact the guarantees clearly outline that competency for abortion legislation lies with the national government.

Or consider the fact the most No voters think a second referendum is undemocratic, whereas most Yes voters don't. Most No voters think the EU is centralized and anti-democratic, most Yes voters dont. Theres lots of these things. I think that their position on these issues aren't shaped by logoi, but rather by the side of the debate they lie on. So fundamentally, I believe most No voters choose their position and then found reasons to support this position. I place my former self in this group, and I am embarrassed by that.

I'd like to go into more detail about this but I have to go.

P. Breathnach

KINGVictor wrote: »

... I still disagree with folks that say that say that the concept of the EU was not primarily of economic integration...

I think your credibility here would be greater if you showed any understanding of the history of the EU.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

The answer in my opinion would be formulating a framework where the citizens of Europe are duely consulted before any proposals or policies are implemented.The current state of affairs is shambolic to say the least.

I still disagree with folks that say that say that the concept of the EU was not primarily of economic integration,I agree that it would be naive to think economic objectives can be realised without some measure of political will/structure but not when it would decide for us how many hours workers can work in a week ,how many immigrants we must allow into our country,overturning decisions of national supreme courts etc...such practises would only lead to its implosion.

I noticed that even the hardest supporters of the EU(in its current state) seem to be avoiding the Immigration point raised.I am not to sure whether immigration is part of the Lisbon treaty but what I know is that the future plans of the EU as regards immigration is frightening.In the Eu freedom of movement directive ,EU nationals and their family have the right to move to any country as long as they prove they are seeking employment.
The Eu has on numeruous occasions humiliated member countries trying to protect their boarders by overturning decisions made lawfully by National Immigration bodies.A classic example is the Surinder Singh route to Immigration.
http://webdb.lse.ac.uk/gender/Casefinaldetail.asp?id=118&pageno=7

This essentially means that if an Irish man is dating an illegal Immigrant in Ireland and the partner is deported from Ireland for commiting a crime ,they could go and live in The Uk and come back to Ireland in six months and live legally in this country .

There have been cases of fake marraiges in which Ireland made a complaint to the EU officially and up till today ..no concrete steps have be taken to put an end to it.

Currently there are plans to introduce BLUE cards for non-eu nationals that would enable them work anywhere in Europe.
The whole thing is just very overwhelming and the truth is that a lot of people are uncomfortable with it.The Eu is a splendid idea in economic terms but when it decided to start interfering in national matters,it becomes a nuinsance.

The reason I didn't touch the immigration point is that long experience has taught me that if someone is opposed to immigration, then there is nothing to be gained by arguing with them about it.

For exampe:

I am not to sure whether immigration is part of the Lisbon treaty but what I know is that the future plans of the EU as regards immigration is frightening. In the Eu freedom of movement directive ,EU nationals and their family have the right to move to any country as long as they prove they are seeking employment.

Let me ramp up your fright a bit, then - under the freedom of movement principle (it's one of the founding principles of the EU), EU nationals have the right to move to any other EU country full stop. For stays over six months there are certain conditions, intended primarily to ensure that they are not a burden on the receiving state, but practically speaking, there are no barriers to immigration into the labour market from any EU state to any other, bar the accession states, which are still subject to certain restrictions.

Now, if you really don't like that, you're not ever going to be happy about the EU, because that free movement is one of the cornerstones of it. That's the long and the short of it, and any argument by me would boil down to trying to persuade you to be comfortable with that. Realistically, it's not something I feel anyone can persuade you out of - you'll either become comfortable with the idea, or not.

In fact, the level of such mobility is surprisingly small - far smaller than the US. We've been in an unusual position over the last five years, because we were one of the few member states to immediately open its labour market, and probably the fastest-growing economy in the EU. We thereby attracted disproportionately large influxes - over the next few years, with our economy shrinking for a while, and with the other member states opening their labour markets, that's going to change, and we'll drop back towards the norm for the EU, which is relatively little mobility. You might be interested in this study.

As I said, though, if you're not happy with immigration, it's extremely unlikely anyone can persuade you to be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Scofflaw wrote: »

The reason I didn't touch the immigration point is that long experience has taught me that if someone is opposed to immigration, then there is nothing to be gained by arguing with them about it.

Ditto, it's completely emotional and can't be argued logically, at least not that I've seen.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

I still disagree with folks that say that say that the concept of the EU was not primarily of economic integration,I agree that it would be naive to think economic objectives can be realised without some measure of political will/structure but not when it would decide for us how many hours workers can work in a week ,how many immigrants we must allow into our country,overturning decisions of national supreme courts etc...such practises would only lead to its implosion.

This is the preamble to the Treaty of Rome, the treaty that founded the EEC:

Treaty establishing the European Economic Community

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,

DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,

DECIDED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action in eliminating the barriers which divide Europe,

DIRECTING their efforts to the essential purpose of constantly improving the living and working conditions of their peoples,

RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee a steady expansion, a balanced trade and fair competition,

ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and by mitigating the backwardness of the less favoured,

DESIROUS of contributing by means of a common commercial policy to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,

INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and overseas countries, and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

RESOLVED to strengthen the safeguards of peace and liberty by establishing this combination of resources, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,

HAVE DECIDED to create a European Economic Community

Note the prime aim there:

DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,

That is a political intention, and it's the first one on the list. The second one puts forward economic and social progress by common action:

DECIDED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action in eliminating the barriers which divide Europe,

Again, that's a political intention. The EU is not some kind of European Free Trade Area, and never has been.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Furious-Dave

I was just thinking there about the commissioner to the EU issue. KINGVictor, and other naysayers, are you aware that a 'No' vote is now a vote in favour of loosing our commissioner? The guarantee of keeping our commissioner is only valid if the Lisbon Treaty is passed, if it is not then we loose the commissioner under the Nice Treaty.

Anyone correct me please if I am wrong.

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is the preamble to the Treaty of Rome, the treaty that founded the EEC:



Note the prime aim there:



That is a political intention, and it's the first one on the list. The second one puts forward economic and social progress by common action:

I think that's very much open to interpretation, there is such a thing as an economic union. Besides which there's no mention of political intentions in that line that you quoted.

F-D, I'm fairly sure commissioners don't belong to member countries, and are not supposed to act in their nation's interests at the expense of others.

turgon

Yes under Nice rules we lose a commissioner for 1/3 of the time starting in 2014. In Lisbon 2 this is stopped.

brianthebard is also right, the commissioners are obliged to act in the interest of the EU as a whole. Which has two major repercussions: first that losing a commissioner isn't bad and secondly that the commission will never work properly if they are directly elected, as they will have a burden to please the folks back home.

Many, including myself, would prefer the Lisbon 1 scenario as it leads to less bureaucracy. At this stage they are making up positions for the commissioners because they really don't have enough jobs for them.


An interesting observation about this whole issue is that Libertas sought a No vote on the basis they wanted 27 commissioners; then subsequently stood for election to Europe on the basis they wanted a slimmed down commission.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

I think that's very much open to interpretation, there is such a thing as an economic union. Besides which there's no mention of political intentions in that line that you quoted.

I don't know how it could be more explicit, frankly. If they had meant "economic union", that's what would be there - they haven't left it out anywhere else they meant it.

brianthebard wrote: »

F-D, I'm fairly sure commissioners don't belong to member countries, and are not supposed to act in their nation's interests at the expense of others.

Very much so:

The members of the Commission shall be chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission shall be completely independent. Without prejudice to Article 18(2), the members of the Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or other institution, body, office or entity. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties or the performance of their tasks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Furious-Dave

brianthebard wrote: »

F-D, I'm fairly sure commissioners don't belong to member countries, and are not supposed to act in their nation's interests at the expense of others.

Oh I know that. The whole commissioner issue was just a ploy used by the Libertas and friends as they knew it would gain support. The Irish people in general don't like the idea of loosing anything. So those who did not understand the role of the commissioners, or that we'd loose the commissioner anyway under Nice, got all up in arms over it.

brianthebard

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Oh I know that. The whole commissioner issue was just a ploy used by the Libertas and friends as they knew it would gain support. The Irish people in general don't like the idea of loosing anything. So those who did not understand the role of the commissioners, or that we'd loose the commissioner anyway under Nice, got all up in arms over it.

That is not an issue for Kingvictor or this 'naysayer' though, so I don't know why you brought it up.

Furious-Dave

brianthebard wrote: »

That is not an issue for Kingvictor or this 'naysayer' though, so I don't know why you brought it up.

That's good. I was just making the point because perhaps some No voters hadn't considered it.

KINGVictor

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I was just thinking there about the commissioner to the EU issue. KINGVictor, and other naysayers, are you aware that a 'No' vote is now a vote in favour of loosing our commissioner? The guarantee of keeping our commissioner is only valid if the Lisbon Treaty is passed, if it is not then we loose the commissioner under the Nice Treaty.

Anyone correct me please if I am wrong.

I think there is this general misconception that every No voter was under the spell of libertas...I listened to libertas and honestly a lot of their reasons for opposing the treaty was not my cup of tea.

As was rightly pointed out ,Commissioners are not appointed to act in the interest of their countries.Personally ,I would not care if there was only 15 or 18 commissioners if they are doing a good job,and if the Lisbon treaty allows us to keep a commissioner each...what is the assurance that the irish commissioner would act in the best interest of the country and not in the interest of his/her pocket.Most Irish commisioners are recycled politicians who get there not by virtue of Character but by appointment by the Government of the day as a reward or some form of compensation.

RandomName2

turgon wrote: »

Ok, so what do I mean by this? Basically many people aren't anti the Treaty for tangible reasons, and all the reasons they give can be easily dismissed. Despite this, they continue to be against it. Take, for instance, the Coir group, who 2 weeks ago had a poster "EU, get you hands off our unborn," despite the fact the guarantees clearly outline that competency for abortion legislation lies with the national government.

Or consider the fact the most No voters think a second referendum is undemocratic, whereas most Yes voters don't. Most No voters think the EU is centralized and anti-democratic, most Yes voters dont. Theres lots of these things. I think that their position on these issues aren't shaped by logoi, but rather by the side of the debate they lie on. So fundamentally, I believe most No voters choose their position and then found reasons to support this position. I place my former self in this group, and I am embarrassed by that.

I'd like to go into more detail about this but I have to go.

I would never have thought you voted 'no' first time round, seeing how... vehement your arguments have been. Zeal of the converted, hey?

But the same knee-jerk reaction applies to the 'yes' camps as well you know.
Vote 'yes'.
Why?
Celtic Tiger.
What?
Ireland + EU = Celtic Tiger = happy Irish citizen = good EU :)= Irish citizen owes EU :mad:. EU want Lisbon. Give EU Lisbon.

And other such cave-man speek.

KINGVictor

brianthebard wrote: »

I think that's very much open to interpretation, there is such a thing as an economic union. Besides which there's no mention of political intentions in that line that you quoted.

F-D, I'm fairly sure commissioners don't belong to member countries, and are not supposed to act in their nation's interests at the expense of others.

And to further add to that...

The association was formed to increase co-operation and forge a meaningful relationship between France and Germany ..,.two countries that were at the forefront of both world wars 1 and 2.The idea was that this relationship would stem the nationalistic tendencies throughout Europe.So the close union was more of an attempt to foster good relationships and not to turn it into a political union.

You would be aware that at the beginning ...those close union debate caused a lot of problems as Britain declined to join initially but decided to form the failed European free trade zone with sweden etc...Britain joined in 1973 with ireland and denmark..Norway was supposed to join as well but a national referendum rejected this.That is why I mentioned the Franco/German ...Anglo axis in my opening post.Even Charles de gulle was against the idea of a political union as he felt (rightly in my opinion)...there was need to preserve the national identity of each country.

The Group was made of 6 nations and it has since metamorphised into 27 ...soon to be 30 or 31.Contextually the close union arguement has no bearing...the dynamics of Europe has changed considerably...Most countries joined the EU to harness the potential economic cooperations,benefits and as a means of obtaining maximal comparative advantage...I would be surprised if countries joined so that in 50 years time Europe could have the same Anthem,currency,millitary .

Sometimes I think a lot of Eu top officials/policy makers use the Union as an experiment of their University dissertations.I may be wrong that the vast majority of Europeans prefer an economic union as opposed to a political one...but at least the decision should theirs and theirs alone and not what 6 lads decided over a bottle of whisky 60 years ago.

KINGVictor

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Ditto, it's completely emotional and can't be argued logically, at least not that I've seen.

That would be not a good enough reason to ignore it .I want to personally assure you ,I would be as realistic and objective as possible.

I support immigration but it has to be within reason and within the confines of the National Immigration laws and not be dictated by Brussels.
Scofflaw gave a flawless analysis (as always) on the EU freedom of movement which I support because it symbiotically aids economic development but my arguement is that it also contravenes national laws because it is suppposed to ostensibly override member nations' immigration laws which in my opinion is nonsensical.

PopeBuckfastXVI

KINGVictor wrote: »

That would be not a good enough reason to ignore it .I want to personally assure you ,I would be as realistic and objective as possible.

I support immigration but it has to be within reason and within the confines of the National Immigration laws and not be dictated by Brussels.
Scofflaw gave a flawless analysis (as always) on the EU freedom of movement which I support because it symbiotically aids economic development but my arguement is that it also contravenes national laws because it is suppposed to ostensibly override member nations' immigration laws which in my opinion is nonsensical.

That's a circle you're going to have to square for yourself.

I see nothing inherently wrong with a group of countries agreeing, nationally, to opening their borders to each others citizens.

It may be one of those 'agree to disagree' cases though KV.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

That would be not a good enough reason to ignore it .I want to personally assure you ,I would be as realistic and objective as possible.

I support immigration but it has to be within reason and within the confines of the National Immigration laws and not be dictated by Brussels.
Scofflaw gave a flawless analysis (as always) on the EU freedom of movement which I support because it symbiotically aids economic development but my arguement is that it also contravenes national laws because it is suppposed to ostensibly override member nations' immigration laws which in my opinion is nonsensical.

Well, it doesn't 'contravene' national laws, because all that's happened is that the nation is deciding to trade complete freedom of action in setting those policies against the advantages of setting them in common with the other member states. That's essentially a policy choice - there are advantages and disadvantages to doing it.

Mind you, the evidence rather suggests that our government prefers an open-borders policy anyway. We've always pursued one in respect of the UK, and UK nationals still form our largest non-Irish minority. The trade-off is an equal right of residence for our citizens elsewhere, which, to be blunt, was much more important for nearly our entire national history.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, it doesn't 'contravene' national laws, because all that's happened is that the nation is deciding to trade complete freedom of action in setting those policies against the advantages of setting them in common with the other member states. That's essentially a policy choice - there are advantages and disadvantages to doing it.

Mind you, the evidence rather suggests that our government prefers an open-borders policy anyway. We've always pursued one in respect of the UK, and UK nationals still form our largest non-Irish minority. The trade-off is an equal right of residence for our citizens elsewhere, which, to be blunt, was much more important for nearly our entire national history.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It was far more important in the case of Irish emigration to the English-speaking world though, and we already had residency rights in the UK anyway and freedom of movement under the UK's Ireland Act. In that context, I don't really see it as benefiting us as much as other nations of the EU, nor do I see EU as being the reason we had the right to move to the UK.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It was far more important in the case of Irish emigration to the English-speaking world though, and we already had residency rights in the UK anyway and freedom of movement under the UK's Ireland Act. In that context, I don't really see it as benefiting us as much as other nations of the EU, nor do I see EU as being the reason we had the right to move to the UK.

Well, you should probably also read the report I linked. There's relatively little mobility in Europe. The recent influx of accession state national to Ireland is extremely unusual, and the result of our government's decision to open our labour market 7 years before they had to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, it doesn't 'contravene' national laws, because all that's happened is that the nation is deciding to trade complete freedom of action in setting those policies against the advantages of setting them in common with the other member states. That's essentially a policy choice - there are advantages and disadvantages to doing it.

Mind you, the evidence rather suggests that our government prefers an open-borders policy anyway. We've always pursued one in respect of the UK, and UK nationals still form our largest non-Irish minority. The trade-off is an equal right of residence for our citizens elsewhere, which, to be blunt, was much more important for nearly our entire national history.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I may have worded that wrongly...

The EU freedom of movement is a very pivotal part of the economic Union...absolutely imperative to achieve the goals of an economically Prosperous Europe.
The concerns of most Europeans would be the fact that the system has been prone to abuse for years and there are no steps to correct them.

Ireland made official complaints about the number of asylum seekers and over-stayers using the EU route as a means to stay in Ireland

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/eu-ruling-hampers-exposure-of-bogus-weddings-1482621.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0925/marriage.html

and all this happened as a result of the infamous Metock case

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0726/1217013248297.html


Initially in the EU freedom of movement directive of 2006 ...there was no mention of allowing illegal spouses of EU nationals...but after a court action was taken by one of the affected parties ...it resulted into a charade where you make Immigration bodies look like fools.

I agree with you that the whole concept of freedom of movement would have its advantages/disadvantages but this is a case where there lack of clarity and consistency ...and that generally encapsulates the EU as a body.

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, you should probably also read the report I linked. There's relatively little mobility in Europe. The recent influx of accession state national to Ireland is extremely unusual, and the result of our government's decision to open our labour market 7 years before they had to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But...Scofflaw...that report in my opinion was a waste of funds and time.The United States of America is a country like Ireland ,Belgium,Holland or France.It is just like carrying a report on the movements of Irish people from Dublin to cork or Waterford.The EU is composed of different countries ,cultures,languages....the study should have been an independent study of movement between nations within the bloc and not compare it to another Nation...

...well unless the theory is that, it is leading towards a superstate.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

But...Scofflaw...that report in my opinion was a waste of funds and time.The United States of America is a country like Ireland ,Belgium,Holland or France.It is just like carrying a report on the movements of Irish people from Dublin to cork or Waterford.The EU is composed of different countries ,cultures,languages....the study should have been an independent study of movement between nations within the bloc and not compare it to another Nation...

...well unless the theory is that, it is leading towards a superstate.

No, the intention was, and is, to create an area of free movement within Europe, so it was always going to be worth looking at how much it actually happens, even just from a labour market perspective, which is the perspective of that report. The US is used as a comparison because the intention is to compare labour markets, where the mobility of US citizens is supposed to be one of the contributing factors to the success of the US economy. I doubt anyone expected to find that mobility in Europe between countries was anywhere near as high as within the US, for the reasons you've given. My purpose in linking it was to show that, generally, Europe has low levels of migration between the countries, not to demonstrate that we are either like or unlike the US.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

I agree with you that the whole concept of freedom of movement would have its advantages/disadvantages but this is a case where there lack of clarity and consistency ...and that generally encapsulates the EU as a body.

All law tends to be a bit fuzzy, with some of the implications left to be worked out in the courts, and invariably some of the implications are surprising even to the authors of the law.

That's part of the nature of legal agreements written by human beings - we fail to be omniscient, and we fail to consider every possible circumstance in which the law may apply - but the only alternative is to abandon the rule of law, because we're never going to get God to write them for us.*

cordially,
Scofflaw

*and let's face it, the ones He is purported to have written have been the subject of more interpretation than any other, with people claiming completely opposite meanings for the same "rules". Come to think of it, I have no idea how any Christian can really object to the Treaty on the basis of length, fuzziness, incomprehensibility, or openness to interpretation!

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, you should probably also read the report I linked. There's relatively little mobility in Europe. The recent influx of accession state national to Ireland is extremely unusual, and the result of our government's decision to open our labour market 7 years before they had to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

True, think our Govts. policy was THE problem, high immigration was one of the symtoms. So was a low tax, high public expenditure economy, borrowing to bail out banks, the recession etc. etc.

KINGVictor

Precisely...why they should leave that to individual member nations to decide and not turn it into a convoluted exercise.The Irish Immigration Service pays unbelievable fines every year because of this lack of clarity.The Irish courts should be allowed to made to make the final call based on the Original directive...because a lot of taxpayers money went into the formulation of the directive.
It becomes a loose/loose situation when we have to let people in against our laws and also pay compensations( hardly mentioned in the media) for trying to protect our borders.

If I go by your analogy ,so this debacle go on indefinitely...because it is subject to the interpretation of the law....we didn't sign up for that.


N.B....I really try my best to steer clear of anything GOD on boards.