Let me tell you my experience about Irish and the EU

national | miscellaneous | news report Saturday June 07, 2003 09:42 by Karl - none factbooks at fr dot sy France France

http://www.europarl.eu.int/factsheets/2_3_0_en.htm

Let me tell you my experience about the Irish Government

I have been in Donegal from 1992 to 95 and had a house there. Last year I have been back with my two kids and registered them in the school in Donegal, then I want on and got back to pick up their mother in Thailand. We applied for a visa to stay in Ireland. We waited 6 months in the 'European Union', Spain, France, and Germany to going 'home' to Ireland. My kids has not been in the school during this time and after 6 months we received a letter from the Irish Foreign Ministry that the visa has been denied without any reason, no details, all we could do is to write again to Ireland and ask for details...
This is Ireland 2003! This is the Irish Government 2003. They don't care a shit unless you are big Bank Director from an Offshore Bank who want to settle down. Let me tell you one thing there in Ireland, the Irish today this 'new rich bourgeoisie class' are much more British then the British in Windsor. The Irish and Ireland has forgotten their past and has become a horse riding polo playing nation with the EU flag on their head, and a Windsor flag in the hearth. This is Ireland today. I don't care a shit because now we have a home in France, but for my kids it has been a chock, loving and enjoying Donegal for weeks, then awaiting the visa to go back and see their school friend, and then the visa refusal for a woman married with children from the EU. Ireland has agreed on the Euro, and they did well if you look at the constructions build with the help of the EU, but the rest is in Windsor. Being a better British then the 'Brits' that what all really think.
50,000,000 Irish are abroad, and the remaing keeps Ireland like an Irish Ltd. (I am woundering way?)
-------------------------------------------------
European Parliament Fact Sheets
2.3.0. Freedom of movement for persons
LEGAL BASIS

— Article 14 (7a) ECT: establishing the internal market, which includes the free movement of persons.

— Article 18 (8a) ECT: Union citizens have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

— Article 61 (73i) et seq: new Title IV, ‘Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons'.

OBJECTIVES

Freedom of movement for persons and the abolition of controls at internal frontiers form part of a wider concept, that of the internal market in which it is not possible for internal frontiers to exist or for individuals to be hampered in their movements.

The concept of the free movement of persons has changed in meaning since its inception. The first provisions on the subject referred merely to the free movement individuals considered as economic agents, either as employees or providers of services. The original economic concept has gradually widened to take on a more general meaning connected with the idea of Union citizenship, independent of any economic activity or distinctions of nationality. This also applies to nationals of third countries, because after controls were abolished at internal borders people could obviously no longer be checked for nationality.

ACHIEVEMENTS

1. Present situation

a. The Schengen area

The most significant development in setting up the internal market without obstacles to the free movement of persons has been the conclusion of the two Schengen agreements, the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, and the Schengen Implementing Convention of 19 June 1990 which came into force on 26 March 1995. The Convention has to date been signed by 13 EU Member States; Ireland and the UK are not members but have an opportunity to ‘opt in' to the application of selected parts of the Schengen body of law. Since the Convention took effect for Italy and Austria on 1 April 1998 frontier controls have been scrapped at the internal borders of all the signatory states except Greece.

Observer status has been granted to the five Nordic Passport Union Members. Denmark, Finland and Sweden became full members of the Agreement at the end of 1996, while Iceland and Norway have an associate status.

The implementing convention aims to abolish internal border controls for all people and includes measures to strengthen external border controls. These include a common visa policy, the possibility of processing asylum applications, police and judicial cooperation and the exchange of information. At the external frontiers all EU citizens may enter the Schengen area merely by showing an identity card or passport. The nationals of third countries included in the common list of non-member countries whose nationals need an entry visa are entitled to a single visa valid for the entire Schengen area. However, every Member State is free to require a visa for other third countries. Police forces assist each other in detecting and preventing crime and will have the right to pursue fugitive criminals and drug traffickers into the territory of a neighbouring Schengen State. For effective operation of the Convention the Schengen Information System (SIS) is an essential technical compensatory measure, supplying information on the entry of third country nationals, the issue of visas and police cooperation. Access to the SIS is primarily restricted to the police and the authorities responsible for border checks.

b. European Union area

As the Schengen Convention is not yet being effectively applied in all the Union Member States, Union territory as a whole should be considered separately from the Schengen area.

Right of residence: with the aim of transforming the Community into an area of genuine freedom and mobility for all Community citizens, the Council adopted three Directives which guarantee rights of residence to categories of persons other than workers. Directive 90/365 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity (retired persons), Directive 90/364 on the right of residence as a catch-all governing all persons who do not already enjoy a right of residence under Community law and Directive 90/366 on the right of residence for students exercising the right to vocational training. The directives require Member States to grant the right of residence to those persons and to certain of their family members, provided that they have adequate resources so as not to become a burden on the social assistance schemes of the Member States and are all covered by sickness insurance. The rights set out in these measures are subject to the same derogations on grounds of public policy, security and health.
Family members (spouses and children under 21), irrespective of their nationality, have the right to reside with a national of a Member State who is employed in the territory of another Member State (Regulation 1612/68, Directive 73/148/EEC, Directive 90/364/EEC, Directive 90/365/EEC, Directive 93/96/EEC). However, the rights of the family members are derivative and not independent of the right of the EU citizen in the respective family; the latter must actually have exercised his or her own right of free movement. If the family members are not EU citizens they may be required to hold an entry visa by the Member State of their residence.
Third-country nationals: Matters of immigration are dealt with on an inter-governmental basis, under the provisions on Justice and Home Affairs in the EUT (previously Articles K to K.9, now new Title IV ECT), but will shortly also be dealt with at Community level. Third country nationals are currently subject, on crossing an internal Community frontier, to controls by each Member State and their right of entry and residence in the territory of the Member States is currently governed by the different Member States' domestic laws. A visa may be required.
Pursuant to Articles 300 and 310 (228 and 238) ECT a number of agreements have been concluded with third countries facilitating the movement of third country nationals in the Community, in particular those from EFTA countries, ACP countries, Turkey, the Maghreb countries and, more recently, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, particularly those applying for EU membership.

2. Restrictions on freedom of movement

The rights attached to freedom of movement for people are subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (Articles 39(3) (48(3)), 46(1) (56(1)) and 55 (66) ECT). These exceptions must be strictly interpreted and the limits to their exercise and scope are set out by the general principles of law such as the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and protection of fundamental rights.

3. External aspect of the freedom of movement

a. The Dublin Convention on the right of asylum

The Dublin Convention, defining the country responsible for considering applications for asylum submitted in an EC Member State, entered into force in the ‘old 12 EU States' on 1 September 1997, in Austria and Sweden on 1 October 1997 and in Finland on 1 January 1998. It establishes the principle that a single Member State is responsible for considering asylum applications.

b. Visa policy

The old Article 100c ECT required the Council to determine the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the European Union. An important step towards the harmonisation of Community visa policy was taken by the adoption of Regulation 2317/95 determining the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the Member States and Regulation 1683/95 laying down a uniform format for visas. The basis of visum policy has changed since the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force, when the old Article 100c ECT became part of the new Title IV, Articles 61-70 ETC.

4. Measures in preparation

a. Incorporation of Schengen and other parts of CJHA in the ‘Community pillar’ by the Treaty of Amsterdam

Up to now the Schengen implementing convention has formed part of cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs (CJHA), within the European Union. This meant that it was not part of Community law but took the form merely of intergovernmental cooperation. A protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty provides for transfer of the ‘Schengen acquis' into a new Title IV, comprising Articles 61 et seq. on ‘Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons'. Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters continues to be conducted at intergovernmental level. The Treaty also includes protocols in which Denmark, Ireland and the UK express reservations as to the new Title IV ECT.

With the entry into force of the Treaty, the Council replaces the Executive Committee of the Schengen Convention. The Council will also, in the words of the new Title IV ECT, adopt measures within a period of five years ‘to establish progressively an area of freedom, security and justice' in the field of visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons, to ensure that Union citizens and third country nationals are not checked when crossing internal borders. It is responsible for regulating standard measures for checks on persons at external borders and standard rules for issuing visas and granting freedom of travel within the Member States' territory to third country nationals. The Council focused on these accompanying measures of secondary legislation in its Resolution of 18 December 1997, laying down the priorities.

Following the transfer of parts of CJHA to the Community sphere, the Court of Justice has received new powers. For measures under the new Title IV ECT are actionable in the Court, provided that they do not concern the abolition of frontier controls, the maintenance of law and order or the safeguarding of internal security under new Article 68(2) EUT.

b. Proposed directive abolishing checks on persons at internal borders

The proposal aims to scrap checks on persons at internal borders within and beyond the domain of the Schengen Convention, when they are applied irrespective of nationality and are not intended to be limited to specific frontier crossings. Member States will only be allowed to demand the resumption of checks in specific and exceptional situations. The ban includes the abolition of border formalities and the requirement on ‘delegated' transport companies to carry out checks. Contrary to original planning the directive did not enter into force in late 1996; an amended Commission proposal was put to the Council in March 1997.

c. Proposed Council directive on freedom of travel within the Community for third country nationals

The proposal aims to grant nationals of non-member countries who are lawfully in the territory of one Member State freedom of travel throughout the Community. Unlike in the case of Community nationals, this right does not at present exist: journeys by third country nationals may only be authorised in accordance with the laws of the individual Member States. The directive will thus tackle such cases as discrimination between family members of differing nationality and will also help to overcome the problems of workers with third country nationality legally working in a Member State and seconded to another Member State.

ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Parliament wants to secure the greatest possible measure of freedom to travel for all persons within the Union's internal frontiers. This is an essential condition for the operation of the internal market under Article 14(2) (7a(2)) ECT. There should be no distinction within the internal frontiers between freedom of travel for Community nationals and that of third country nationals. Freedom of travel is one of the fundamental human rights; any restriction of that freedom hinders third-country nationals' access to the internal market and thus also its operation.

Parliament takes the view that while the abolition of internal borders requires some accompanying measures this must not be a pretext for introducing systematic controls in border areas or hermetically sealing off external frontiers.

To underline its views, for instance, in 1993 Parliament initiated proceedings against the Commission for failure to act (under Article 232 (175) ECT, in Case C 445/93), because it had failed to put forward suitable proposals for the free movement of persons in the European Union. A high-level group, set up to look into the legal, administrative and practical difficulties of citizens in exercising their right to freedom of movement, reported to the Commission in 1997. The group listed a wide variety of measures to improve conditions for the exercise of freedom of movement.