"None of our children on the list are getting these houses"

iebamm2580

alastair wrote: »

Nothing biased in that question. So you’ve really got nothing to undermine the clear preference of the majority polled.

Alastair you of all people should know im allowed to intepret a poll as i feel. A poll is based on feelings so therefore interpreting results are based on the interpreters feelings.

Effects

The women said their families are spending up to 15 years on the waiting list with many ending up leaving the area to get housing.

What's wrong with having to leave your own area? I had to do it when I was buying my first home. So did the majority of my mates.

suicide_circus

Effects wrote: »

What's wrong with having to leave your own area? I had to do it when I was buying my first home. So did the majority of my mates.

not one of my friends who could afford to buy bought in the area they grew up including myself

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

Completely and hilariously wrong. It was Chen that was challenging the Home Secretary. The ECJ does not and cannot suspend member nations' rights to decide matters on which they are competent when a matter of controversy is being litigated.

In 2003-2004, non-EU parents could not rely on treaty rights to settle in a third EU country. This is the fact of the matter, you cannot make up the law because you have an ideological ferret clawing away at the back of your brain.

And once again, the 2003 judgement was not about treaty rights, it was about a discreet matter in the Irish statute book.

You’re wrong. Non-EU parents of EU citizens could rely on treaty rights to settle in a third EU country. It was the extant law - regardless of any UK litigation taking place at the time. That the Chen case was subsequently won against the Home Secretary was confirmation of this.

It’s also re-confirmed by more recent ECJ rulings: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-05/cp170048en.pdf

alastair

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Alastair you of all people should know im allowed to intepret a poll as i feel. A poll is based on feelings so therefore interpreting results are based on the interpreters feelings.

Keep sticking that head in the sand - it’s your entitlement, as you say.

iebamm2580

alastair wrote: »

Keep sticking that head in the sand - it’s your entitlement, as you say.

It is my entitlement, thanks for acknowledging that, you are slowly learning.

alastair

iebamm2580 wrote: »

It is my entitlement, thanks for acknowledging that, you are slowly learning.

You’re equally entitled to claim the earth is flat. But that doesn’t change those awkward facts either.

Yurt2

alastair wrote: »

You’re wrong. Non-EU parents of EU citizens could rely on treaty rights to settle in a third EU country. It was the extant law - regardless of any UK litigation taking place at the time. That the Chen case was subsequently won against the Home Secretary was confirmation of this.

It’s also re-confirmed by more recent ECJ rulings: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-05/cp170048en.pdf

You're trying to reverse engineer a subsequent descision and take it back in a DeLorean with Doc and Marty McFly to change what the state of the law was at the time.

They couldn't in the years in question as the Chen case wasn't handed down. The Irish Supreme Court judgement in 2003 confirmed as much. Whether a subsequent judgement disagreed with those judgements or not does not affect the state of the law at the time.


In 2003-2004 non EU parents could not rely on treaty rights to settle in a third EU country, it was wholly the competency of the member states.

You have a very weak understanding of how the law works. The law doesn't care about your ideology, neither does the space time continum in fact.

Antares35

Westwood wrote: »

Brand new build here in Ratoath co Meath 400 houses, 10% given to foreign nationals as council houses, not 1 Irish family, these houses start at 310k-500k, call it what you like racism or whatever but it's sickening to the stomach

What gives other people on the list preference over foreign nationals? You cant use the "contribution to society" argument...

iebamm2580

alastair wrote: »

You’re equally entitled to claim the earth is flat. But that doesn’t change those awkward facts either.

Nothing awkward at all alastair, you seem wound up today, do you need to go for a walk , clear the head.

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

They couldn't in the years in question as the Chen case wasn't handed down. The Irish Supreme Court judgement in 2003 confirmed as much. Whether a subsequent judgement disagreed with those judgements or not does not affect the state of the law at the time.


In 2003-2004 non EU parents could not rely on treaty rights it was wholly at the discretion of the member states.

The Irish Supreme Court judgement didn’t apply to other EU states at any point, and was subsequently overturned by ECJ rulings in any case. Treaty rights existed for those parents at the time - if individual member states decided to challenge those rights, then they could, but they didn’t, and the law of the day allowed those residency rights. They still do.

alastair

[HTML][/HTML]

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Nothing awkward at all alastair, you seem wound up today, do you need to go for a walk , clear the head.

Oh, those facts are pretty awkward for your position.

iebamm2580

alastair wrote: »

[HTML][/HTML]

Oh, those facts are pretty awkward for your position.

Oh but they are not alastair, this is even a reach for you telling me how to feel. You have certainly a unique some would say narcissistic personality.

Yurt2

alastair wrote: »

The Irish Supreme Court judgement didn’t apply to other EU states at any point, and was subsequently overturned by ECJ rulings in any case. Treaty rights existed for those parents at the time - if individual member states decided to challenge those rights, then they could, but they didn’t, and the law of the day allowed those residency rights. They still do.

The deportation was upheld by the Supreme court, that was very much the state of the law of the time, it was the competency of Ireland, a member state to decide as such. It was also in the gift of the Home Secretary at the time. This only changed with the Chen judgement.

You can't turn up in a time travelling machine and change what the legal situation was in 2003/2004, much as you might want to. And the pregnant ladies with non-EU passports knew what was up, which is why they were looking elsewhere.

alastair

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Oh but they are not alastair, this is even a reach for you telling me how to feel. You have certainly a unique some would say narcissistic personality.

Nothing to do with me pal, your difficulty arises between your beliefs, and the facts.
.

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

The deportation was upheld by the Supreme court, that was very much the state of the law of the time, it was the competency of Ireland, a member state to decide as such. It was also in the gift of the Home Secretary at the time. This only changed with the Chen judgement.

You can't turn up in a time travelling machine and change what the legal situation was in 2003/2004, much as you might want to. And the pregnant ladies with non-EU passports knew what was up, which is why they were looking elsewhere.

Again - Irish law had no bearing on any other member states at any point, and that judgement was subsequently found to be unlawful. No delorean required. The U.K. situation was even less convincing - at no point was there U.K. law applied. The Chen case was brought under the terms of treaty rights (Council Directive 90/364 Art 18 (1)), and was arbitrated under the auspices of the ECJ.

str8talkingguy

Why does everyone need links and polls that are often flawed, biased and bought. Does everyone need someone else to think for them? No critical thinking at all, we could always afford social housing at our poorest, now seemingly great economy, first world country supposedly and all of a sudden we cant afford it.

Waken up people our foolish elite running the country got stung by external banks and offset it onto the middle and working class tax payer. They massage the figures with clever schemes like hap that keep their pockets lined all the while, making the taxpayer believe its the bottom class Irish where all the money is going to. When in reality the bottom class Irish are being used and moved around so the elite don't suffer as bad as the rest of us, they might not be raking it in as in the good times but they aren't struggling as long as they Can get all their vacant properties let through the hap scheme.

Yurt2

alastair wrote: »

Again - Irish law had no bearing on any other member states any point, and that judgement was subsequently found to be unlawful. No delorean required.

My God you are obtuse. In 2003, the Irish Supreme Court upheld the right of the Minister of Justice (which is tangentially related to the Chen case in that if the Chen case had concluded, the court wouldn't have handed down this verdict) to deport a non-EU parent. That was the legal reality at the time, the Supreme Court affirmed the minister's right to deport in this circumstance. A 2015 judgement has no bearing on the realities of 2003/2004.

In 2003 / 2004 non Eu parents could not rely on treaty rights. And that's not even a legal opinion, it is fact. They couldn't.

It followed that a sh*t-load of people found out they didn't stand to benefit from Jus-soli citizenship rules, so didn't bother chancing their arm. That was my point, and it stays my point. That and you are wrong and make stuff up because you are an ideologue.

str8talkingguy

Classic divide and Conquer tactics and it never seems to get old, people buy it up over and over.

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

My God you are obtuse. In 2003, the Irish Supreme Court upheld the right of the Minister of Justice (which is tangentially related to the Chen case in that if the Chen case had concluded, the court wouldn't have handed down this verdict) to deport a non-EU parent. That was the legal reality at the time, the Supreme Court affirmed the minister's right to deport in this circumstance. A 2015 judgement has no bearing on the realities of 2003/2004.

In 2003 / 2004 non Eu parents could not rely on treaty rights. And that's not even a legal opinion, it is fact. They couldn't.

It followed that a sh*t-load of people found out they didn't stand to benefit from Jus-soli citizenship rules, so didn't bother chancing their arm. That was my point, and it stays my point. That and you are wrong and make stuff up because you are an ideologue.

One more time - the Irish Supreme Court had precisely zero bearing on the law of the other member states.

Non-EU parents of EU citizens certainly could rely on treaty rights in other EU member states. That’s precisely what they were doing. That’s precisely what Chen was doing. That is the actual fact.

beauf

str8talkingguy wrote: »

Why does everyone need links and polls that are often flawed, biased and bought. Does everyone need someone else to think for them? No critical thinking at all, we could always afford social housing at our poorest, now seemingly great economy, first world country supposedly and all of a sudden we cant afford it.

Waken up people our foolish elite running the country got stung by external banks and offset it onto the middle and working class tax payer. They massage the figures with clever schemes like hap that keep their pockets lined all the while, making the taxpayer believe its the bottom class Irish where all the money is going to. When in reality the bottom class Irish are being used and moved around so the elite don't suffer as bad as the rest of us, they might not be raking it in as in the good times but they aren't struggling as long as they Can get all their vacant properties let through the hap scheme.

Except that no-one wants a hap tenant. They had to force landlords to take them.

So as conspiracy theories go, it's pretty rubbish.

Ash.J.Williams

my parent's weren't in social housing, therefore i'm not regardless of my finances. The kids i went to school with from social housing all grew up and went "on the list"...


having said that we live in a country that housing isn't affordable

iebamm2580

alastair wrote: »

Nothing to do with me pal, your difficulty arises between your beliefs, and the facts.
.

lol a poll is an opinion not fact. A vote is fact not a poll so come back to me when we vote to have birth right citizenship until then enjoy cuckoo land.

super_furry

The one thing that does annoy me in the idea that people should have a pick over where they get council housing. In that, 'my mother lives here so I want a house here too'.

I had to move to the other side of the city from when I grew up and where was renting in order to buy my own house.

If you reject a perfectly good house on the council list because it's not where your mammy is, you should drop right back down the list.

Kermit.de.frog

str8talkingguy wrote: »

Classic divide and Conquer tactics and it never seems to get old, people buy it up over and over.

I misread your user name as stalkerguy.

alastair

iebamm2580 wrote: »

lol a poll is an opinion not fact. A vote is fact not a poll so come back to me when we vote to have birth right citizenship until then enjoy cuckoo land.

The poll findings are fact. A vote is just another poll.

iebamm2580

alastair wrote: »

The poll findings are fact. A vote is just another poll.

Wrong.

Damien360

alastair wrote: »

The poll findings are fact. A vote is just another poll.

Polls are nonsense. They can be made to fit any narrative. The recent election polls just before the recent election should have confirmed this to you.

str8talkingguy

beauf wrote: »

Except that no-one wants a hap tenant. They had to force landlords to take them.

So as conspiracy theories go, it's pretty rubbish.

Sorry to burst your bubble but when you are talking about small time landlords with maybe one property they aren't winning through the hap scheme and would rather a professional couple and they pay high tax and aren't winning.

But I am very familiar with this area more than you obviously, there's a clic of B&B and property owners doing extremely well from the hap scheme, getting max price for properties and rooms that would most likely be vacant catered specially for the hap scheme, you got your head in the sand and are a useful idiot for them or you are shilling for some crumbs from ur masters table.

alastair

Damien360 wrote: »

Polls are nonsense. They can be made to fit any narrative. The recent election polls just before the recent election should have confirmed this to you.

The recent election polls were pretty accurate. Certainly within the margin of error. What narrative do you imagine is being ‘fitted onto’ 71% supporting citizenship for those born here?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Irish_general_election