TV3 Ganley-Sutherland debate now

[ibis]

correct. Even in the SPUC/Grogan case at the ECJ (before the protocol) the Advocate General had held that the government was entitled to an free movement exception on grounds of public policy based on Art 40.3.3

That's quite a useful Article.

I have to admit, I considered the possibility the Article might be changed to be something else entirely...

[stringjack]

correct. Even in the SPUC/Grogan case at the ECJ (before the protocol) the Advocate General had held that the government was entitled to an free movement exception on grounds of public policy based on Art 40.3.3

That's quite a useful Article.

I have to admit, I considered the possibility the Article might be changed to be something else entirely...

One possible response is that the ECJ should interpret the Treaty text as referring to the text of 40.3.3 as it was at the time of the ratification of Maastricht, but you probably won't want to say that. Equally, we probably don't want to say that Papinian's right, and that the ECJ can set limits on the scope of 40.3.3 over and above those set by the Irish Supreme Court. Which leaves us saying that what's stopping us just putting anything we like into 40.3.3 is the fact that every other European government would go ballistic (so, the restraint is political, not legal).

[The Red Rose of Cork]

for what its worth the entire opinion of Advocate General Van Gerven in SPUC?Grogan can be found here
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 59:EN:HTML

[junketman]

Ah Peter Sutherland, the doyan of corporate interests...

I should have known he would be on the Yes side, the man could care less about the fate of ordinary people...

he's on the board of so many corporations, oil companies, banks, peddling their agenda...

Yet another reason to vote No, anything Sutherland is in favour of you can be sure it will benefit the large corporations and do damage to the ordinary people...