Get off your high horse. This course is vast. It is in a different league to the other fe-1's and it requires far too much toil to get to 50.
I hate to say it but the comparisons with the Lisbon no-vote are uncanny. > > With regard the syllabus I do not see any argument for an easier > paper. > > Question 1 on the Commission asked how the Commission is appointed, > what the commissioners duties are and how it is involved in the > legislative process. How could anybody claim to be worthy of a pass if > they can not write for 35 mins on this? > > Question 2 required application of direct effect, supremecy, > equivalence of judicial systems to national and community law and an > understanding of how damages may be recovered. The beginning was > obviously mandatory for the course and although I found myself lost > when it came to damages it can hardly be argued that any student could > not have been expected to be able to outline such a procedure. > > Question 3 (a) was on Art 95 and how it should be applied in contrast > to how the Commission has ought to apply it. It required reliance on > at most 4 cases in the area that are completely covered on both the > Griffith and Independant College notes. If you had this prepared the > question could not have been put any simpler. If not, there was > another option that was similarly basic in its requirements. Between > the two they covered an entire area of the syllabus and so, an > inability to answer either question could only be based in a complete > lack of knowledge as to an entire area of the course. > > An entire question on the Free movement of Goods was expected and > delivered. Sure, the facts were tricky but you either know how to > apply the Articles and case law or you do not. The method of > application is a serious of questions you put to the facts and as long > as you go through this method of analysis it matters not whether you > achieve a 'right' answer as you will have undoubtedly have achieved > more then 50%. The fact that he tells you to confine your answer to > Art 25, 28-30 and 90 means you simply can't go wrong. > > An entire question on Union citizenship was expected and delivered. > This required the simple application of equality principles, Directive > 2004/38 and the free movement of workers. Some understanding of the > ambiguous development of the ECJ's attitude towards purely internal > matters would have assured high marks as would their invocation of the > rights of the family. > > I regard my knowledge in EU Law as very low and am worried I may have > failed the paper but if I do fail it will not have been as a result of > the examiner's paper. If I, or anyone, couldn't glean 50% from the > above questions (let alone the fact that EC Competition was guaranteed > and not complex) then the simple fact is that we do not have a > sufficient understanding of EU Law. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
