No to a Eurostate

New_Departure06

Conar wrote:

Sorry, but I think you are misquoting me, I did not say that they are harder works. I said that they work hard.
Most decent Irish folk also work hard, I did not imply that they don't!
I do not however see the harm in importing more workers when we need them!
Our tourism and catering industries for example would be lost without them!

Who decides whether we need them or not? Who decides how many we need? Who should decide?

I would prefer some kind of independent agency to make the decision, and for an annual quota to be introduced based on that. I don't trust politicians to have the best of motives.

Gurgle

New_Departure06 wrote:

I would prefer some kind of independent agency to make the decision, and for an annual quota to be introduced based on that.

How about we allow people to come and go as they please, when all the jobs are filled they'll stop coming and start going.

Do you remember the 80s?
Most of my friend's big brothers disappeared at 17 or so, mostly to work on building sites in London. They worked, they paid their taxes, they saved money then they came home.

Advantage for them: Came home with enough money to give them a good start here. Many of them are now running their own building companys here.
Advantage for England: Labour when it was needed, no dole payment when the labour was no longer needed.

Everyones a winner.

Now Ireland is in that boat: booming economy, more work than people willing to do it. But of course you get the lazy fcukers who have never worked a day in their lives (and never would) bitching about the foreigners taking their jobs.

New_Departure06

How about we allow people to come and go as they please, when all the jobs are filled they'll stop coming and start going.

Public opinion doesn't agree with that according to latest poll. In fact 29% say that there are already too many here, with another 43% saying sufficient numbers are here and that we do not need more.

Do you remember the 80s?
Most of my friend's big brothers disappeared at 17 or so, mostly to work on building sites in London. They worked, they paid their taxes, they saved money then they came home.

Advantage for them: Came home with enough money to give them a good start here. Many of them are now running their own building companys here.
Advantage for England: Labour when it was needed, no dole payment when the labour was no longer needed.

Everyones a winner.

A couple of differences. Firstly we are former colony of Britain, and former colonial powers often have preferential rules on immigration from former colonies. Ireland never had colonies and certainly not in Eastern Europe. Secondly, the proximity of Ireland to Britain made it more convenient to return home than for someone from Poland going back there for Ireland. Thirdly we speak English and were therefore easier to integrate in Britain. Lastly we have 4 million people, not 40 million like Poland.

Now Ireland is in that boat: booming economy, more work than people willing to do it. But of course you get the lazy fcukers who have never worked a day in their lives (and never would) bitching about the foreigners taking their jobs.

Are the 74% opposed to further labour migration from the new EU states "laxy fcukers"? Is that what you think? Jim Power, the Friends First economist, has been quoted in the media as warning of an overdependent on the construction sector. Immigrants need somewhere to live and are estimated according to the media to constitute 15% of housing demand this year. This pushes up house prices, potentially leading to an eventual collapse in demand and a hard landing for the economy. A soft landing will require lower immigration growth to avoid that.

I can understand now one of the reasons opposition in countries like Norway to EU entry is so strong. On labour shortages, I think that business is more likely to play up this in order to get the govt to let in cheaper labour. It's hard to believe that with so many people coming in, there can still be significant labour shortages.

I think in a way, immigration creates more labour shortages. This is because they need somewhere to live, meaning that more builders are needed. Also, they will sometimes end up in hospital here, so that creates a greater demand for nurses. They will also send children to schools here, so more teachers will be needed. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

I think we need to take a deep breathe in order to think about where we go from here. We need to avoid the problems in France. Therefore we need policies to avoid ghettoisation and to assimilate migrants. I don't think scenes like last year in France will do much good for our economy. I also point out Austria, Holland and Denmark have not yet lifted controls on the new EU states but have 5% unemployment or less. It shows that newcomers are not needed to sustain their economies.

Anyway I am more concerned with the 21st century than the 80's.

Conar

Sorry New Departure but I can't help but feel that you are just throwing statistics, quotes, and irrelevant refereneces at us.
What harm exactly do you think the immigrant workers are causing?

If your main problem is that they use our hospitals and the kids use our schools, then relax....they are paying taxes here just like us.
They are entitled to medical care and shooling for their children.

New_Departure06

Conar wrote:

Sorry New Departure but I can't help but feel that you are just throwing statistics, quotes, and irrelevant refereneces at us.
What harm exactly do you think the immigrant workers are causing?

If your main problem is that they use our hospitals and the kids use our schools, then relax....they are paying taxes here just like us.
They are entitled to medical care and shooling for their children.

But if they are being paid less they are paying less tax. Also is it too much to ask to be the majority in our own country? It's not as black and white as you think. Some say immigration is either totally good or totally bad. You seem to be taking the former position. I take a middle way. Some immigration may be a good thing. But it has to be managed according to our absorption capacity. Also, the govt has recently decided to relax the rules on non-national access to unemployment benefit. So a possibility exists than in the event of an economic downturn, immigrants could become a burden on the State. That should be considered.

I would also like public-opinion to be taken account on both European integration (which is what I started this thread on) and immigration policy.

Conar

I'm actually more playing the role of devils advocate here.
I can see where you are coming from with your arguments, just I feel they are a little OTT in parts.

I do think that the government should always play an active role in monitoring and controlling the movement of any large number of people, be it immigrants from eastern europe, or if for example half of Cork decided they wanted to live in Dublin (not being funny, just speaking hypothetically)! Planning is esential for a society to function well and we must ensure that our elected representatives do the job they have been voted in to do.

All in all, geting back to the overall topic we are discussing, I would like to see the whole world being united so I think the EU is a step in the right direction. Bring on the Star Trek Federationy kinda thingamyjiggery of a world thats what I say!

Who's with me?

***cough***

No one?

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Decisions should be taken closest to the people they effect.

Let’s abolish national government then and return to the use of village elders.

Public opinion doesn't agree with that according to latest poll. In fact 29% say that there are already too many here, with another 43% saying sufficient numbers are here and that we do not need more.

37% of all statistics in Internet discussions are invented to back up an argument.

A couple of differences. Firstly we are former colony of Britain, and former colonial powers often have preferential rules on immigration from former colonies. Ireland never had colonies and certainly not in Eastern Europe.

That is completely irrelevant as we have a similar relationship with other European states for different, and frankly better, reasons.

Secondly, the proximity of Ireland to Britain made it more convenient to return home than for someone from Poland going back there for Ireland.

I saw an avert on a bus for flights to Warsaw at €1 yesterday. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

Thirdly we speak English and were therefore easier to integrate in Britain.

Again irrelevant, as most of the Eastern European workers are temporary, as many of us were in the eighties in places like Germany and England, so real integration is irrelevant. They’ll make their money until the work dries up then move back home.

Lastly we have 4 million people, not 40 million like Poland.

Your point? They’re all going to come over? We should start learning Polish? What?

Anyway I am more concerned with the 21st century than the 80's.

That’s a rather glib way to dismiss the evidence of history.

Gurgle

New_Departure06 wrote:

But if they are being paid less they are paying less tax.

They are not being paid less for the same job.
If their average income is less (which I have no reason to believe) then its because they are in the lower paid jobs.

New_Departure06 wrote:

Also is it too much to ask to be the majority in our own country?

Majority of what?
White catholic celts?
Yes, thats too much to ask.
Irish?
This generation's immigrants are the next generation's Irish.

New_Departure06 wrote:

I would also like public-opinion to be taken account on both European integration (which is what I started this thread on) and immigration policy.

Informed public opinion?
Yes, certainly.
Xenophobia masquerading as nationalism?
Nope.

The Corinthian

Conar wrote:

All in all, geting back to the overall topic we are discussing, I would like to see the whole world being united so I think the EU is a step in the right direction. Bring on the Star Trek Federationy kinda thingamyjiggery of a world thats what I say!

It’s not going to happen though. Why do people somehow think that national governments like France or Germany are going to vote themselves out of existence? They’ve no intention of doing so and neither can they “take over Europe” - typically a charge that Eurosceptics throw out without backing up with any argument, let alone evidence - as they’re not powerful enough (or ever will be) in the EU to do that.

Indeed, France and the UK are most likely the principle reason we will never see a European Federation as both are labouring under the burden of having ‘won’ World War II. I use the term advisedly as neither really did; the US and USSR did with the UK in a minor supporting role and France only ‘won’ after losing - twice. So both still see themselves as great international or imperial powers, when in reality they’re only great when the US allows them to be - You’d think they’d have learned from Suez.

So, what is far more likely is that we’ll eventually become some form of super Switzerland; with a looser confederated model while every state essentially remains a separate entity.

However we are likely to become more integrated as this has become necessary in the modern geopolitical arena. The EU is a very powerful economic block that in many ways surpasses the US. As single countries, even the European Big Boys, like the UK, France and Germany (Italy, it pains me to say has not been for a while), cannot realistically compete with the US, China or the Russian Federation, and this will become even more evident in the next few decades as more Big Boys, like Brazil or India, come into their own.

Of course, in Ireland we could adopt the ‘little islander’ approach instead. Unfortunately this relies on the good will of the Big Boys around you - which given our strategic transatlantic and British Isles location is ultimately going to be very limited.

So ultimately further integration will happen, although there are limits to how far this will go in the foreseeable future. Of course, this does not take into account political shocks to the system that could turn us all rabidly pro or anti Europe (and ironically US unilateralism has done for the Eurofederal cause than the billions spent by the Commission).

Ultimately this is not a bad thing, as whither we like it or not it is always better to be a member than a client state.

New_Departure06

Informed public opinion?
Yes, certainly.
Xenophobia masquerading as nationalism?
Nope.

We are informed. You can speculate as to peoples' motives if you like. But nonetheless in a republic the people's wishes should decide on issues like this. We are not stupid. We are capable of making up our own minds on issues.

This generation's immigrants are the next generation's Irish.

But how can you know that for sure? It doesn't seem to have worked out that way in France. The Unionist's ancestors didn't come to see themselves as Irish. After about 40 generations here and they don't feel Irish.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

The Unionist's ancestors didn't come to see themselves as Irish. After about 40 generations here and they don't feel Irish.

Actually, they do - just not your kind of Irish.

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, they do - just not your kind of Irish.

Polls show that only 2% of Northern Unionists feel Irish.

We want our new citizens to put Ireland first. The Unionists didn't do that when they partitioned this country. It strikes me that they are an example of how difficult it is to integrate a minority from a different culture. I say this from the experience of partition on this island, and not from any preconceived ideas on my part.

The following poll in Northern Ireland included categories of Unionist, Nationalist and "Neither" as well as including the identity options of "Irish", "British" or "Northern Irish".
http://www.ulster.ac.uk/news/releases/2004/1168.html

When it comes to political allegiance Church of Ireland members have remained staunchly Unionist at 69%-71% in the period 1989-2002....In 1989 65% considered themselves British but this had risen to 76% by 2002.

Presbyterians are staunchly Unionist and British, according to the data collated since 1989. Around three quarters of respondents identify themselves as Unionist, although up to a quarter consider themselves to be neither unionist nor nationalist.

While their political allegiance is hardly surprising, their national identity is of more political significance. In recent years, especially since the signing of the Belfast Agreement, Presbyterians, the largest Protestant denomination in Northern Ireland, have moved more towards adopting a British identity. In 1996 some 63% claimed to be British. By 2001 this had risen to 77%.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Polls show that only 2% of Northern Unionists feel Irish.

I'm getting a little tired of your 'polls' - a reputable source please, otherwise I'll just assume you're making this up.

New_Departure06

Okay here is my source on the 2%. Actually its 3% - I apologise for being so drastically wrong there TC! Please forgive me....

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm#chap2

Specifically look under the "Religion and national identity" heading.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

At the risk of opening up a real can of works and hijacking the thread, I'm going to ask a question.

Putting polls, statistics, fears and so on aside:
What does National Identiy do for you?

I ask because it gets bantered around a bit wiht acceptance that it's automatically a positive thing.

Personally, I'm an individual. I take my opinions and character from what I see around me, what I hear and what I experience rather than a set of pre-established concepts that I'm expected to have because I'm Irish. I don't automatically like or hate something because it's part of my 'national identitiy'. I see it, judeg it and decide upon it.

Identity is something that is personal rather than national. Of course, one could say exactly the same about a 'european' identiy or a 'local' identity.

New_Departure06

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

At the risk of opening up a real can of works and hijacking the thread, I'm going to ask a question.

Putting polls, statistics, fears and so on aside:
What does National Identiy do for you?

I ask because it gets bantered around a bit wiht acceptance that it's automatically a positive thing.

Personally, I'm an individual. I take my opinions and character from what I see around me, what I hear and what I experience rather than a set of pre-established concepts that I'm expected to have because I'm Irish. I don't automatically like or hate something because it's part of my 'national identitiy'. I see it, judeg it and decide upon it.

Identity is something that is personal rather than national. Of course, one could say exactly the same about a 'european' identiy or a 'local' identity.

Identity was national in 1916 and 1919-21, and 1594-1603, and 1641 and 1798. If there had not been a common belief in national identity, then the Irish people would not have cared about what happened to Pearse and Connolly etc. in terms of their executions. Their executions and the British attrocities against Irish civilians roused the people to fight for our independence. Would they have fought for our independence if they didn't care about the concept of national identity? It is no coincidence that the growth in separatism from the 1890's onwards came at a time when cultural Gaelic nationalism was growing, in terms of the Gaelic League and the GAA. A feeling of being separate helped propel us to independence.

Preserving a sense of Ireland being a separate national identity is therefore essential to our continued independence. National identity helps keep society together.

Further European integration undermines national identity which I think is indeed the intention of it for many of its proponents. I would like to know why there are those who would favour this?

Gurgle

New_Departure06 wrote:

If there had not been a common belief in national identity, then the Irish people would not have cared about what happened to Pearse and Connolly etc. in terms of their executions.

More bull tbh.

It was not national identity that drove Ireland to revolution, it was abuse and oppression.

Nominally, Ireland was a part of the kingdom not a colony of the empire. It was treated as a colony, with land seizure, religious oppresion and the most disgracefull failure of the Brittish throne/government in the 19th century: a devastating famine within their kingdom's borders, and in one of the most fertile farming countries in the world.

National identity came later.

New_Departure06 wrote:

Further European integration undermines national identity

What national identity are you talking about btw?
Do you speak Irish?
Do you play Gaelic/Hurling?
Play the harp?

New_Departure06

Gurgle wrote:

More bull tbh.

It was not national identity that drove Ireland to revolution, it was abuse and oppression.

Nominally, Ireland was a part of the kingdom not a colony of the empire. It was treated as a colony, with land seizure, religious oppresion and the most disgracefull failure of the Brittish throne/government in the 19th century: a devastating famine within their kingdom's borders, and in one of the most fertile farming countries in the world.

National identity came later.

But without national identity, people would not have considered the plight of others in the country as being part of "their" experience. It was national identity that meant it was and is seen as part of our common experience. Without national identity, people not effected too much by the famine or 1916 would have felt "doesn't concern me". Thank you national identity for rousing the people to end the slavery of foreign rule in 1916-21.

Gurgle

New_Departure06 wrote:

Thank you national identity for rousing the people to end the slavery of foreign rule in 1916-21.

Do you not see a difference between being an imperial colony without any say in your own destiny and being part of something bigger than your own nation?
Please give details - what do you think will change in Ireland if we join an EU superstate?
Is your problem all about xenophobia?
You can't deny that economically it would make us even stronger. That in itself means better educated and higher standard of living.
Peace is good too, at home and in all the coutries nearby.

New_Departure06

Gurgle wrote:

Do you not see a difference between being an imperial colony without any say in your own destiny and being part of something bigger than your own nation?
Please give details - what do you think will change in Ireland if we join an EU superstate?
Is your problem all about xenophobia?
You can't deny that economically it would make us even stronger. That in itself means better educated and higher standard of living.
Peace is good too, at home and in all the coutries nearby.

A European Superstate would change Ireland because:

A: There has never been a state without harmonised taxes - in a federal system there has never been one where there is not a common income tax in each state. Harmonised European taxes would inevitably mean our taxes going up, wrecking the economy and dragging us down to the level of mainland Europe with its 10% unemployment.

B: A Eurostate would have a common army. We could be conscripted into it and forced into wars we do not want.

C: The men and women of 1916 did not die for a European superstate.

It was hard enough getting independence in the first place. Something hard fought for should not be surrendered so easily.

E: Don't want unelected Brussels bureaucrats and Franco-German imperialists running my life.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

New_Departure06 wrote:

Identity was national in 1916 and 1919-21, and 1594-1603, and 1641 and 1798. If there had not been a common belief in national identity, then the Irish people would not have cared about what happened to Pearse and Connolly etc. in terms of their executions. Their executions and the British attrocities against Irish civilians roused the people to fight for our independence. Would they have fought for our independence if they didn't care about the concept of national identity? It is no coincidence that the growth in separatism from the 1890's onwards came at a time when cultural Gaelic nationalism was growing, in terms of the Gaelic League and the GAA. A feeling of being separate helped propel us to independence.

Preserving a sense of Ireland being a separate national identity is therefore essential to our continued independence. National identity helps keep society together.

Further European integration undermines national identity which I think is indeed the intention of it for many of its proponents. I would like to know why there are those who would favour this?

You misunderstad - I menat neational identity as a concept, rather than 'Irish' identiy. In what way does natinal identity keep a society (any society) together?

New_Departure06

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

You misunderstad - I menat neational identity as a concept, rather than 'Irish' identiy. In what way does natinal identity keep a society (any society) together?

It encourages people to defend their homeland from invaders. I think identity is important. Irish identity is a national identity. Why are you making a distinction between "Irish identity" and "national identity"?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

New_Departure06 wrote:

It encourages people to defend their homeland from invaders. I think identity is important. Irish identity is a national identity. Why are you making a distinction between "Irish identity" and "national identity"?

You stll sound a bit 1916ish. What are the benefits for you, as a person, from a national identity? I ask becuae I've never really seen it as a big deal. Even when Istudied history, I never really felt like I was under threat from anyone. I make the distinction becaue not everyone is Irish. What are the beneifts to any given person of their particular national identity? Think beyone the borders...

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Okay here is my source on the 2%. Actually its 3% - I apologise for being so drastically wrong there TC! Please forgive me....

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm#chap2

Specifically look under the "Religion and national identity" heading.

It doesn't say that.

The only time 3% is mentioned is with relation to those people who are “unwilling to commit themselves to either the 'British', 'Ulster' or 'Irish' labels” in the DUP. Indeed it showed that the identity favoured amongst the DUP was neither ‘British’ or ‘Irish’, but ‘Ulster’.

Again I’d like you to back up your ‘statistics’.

A: There has never been a state without harmonised taxes - in a federal system there has never been one where there is not a common income tax in each state. Harmonised European taxes would inevitably mean our taxes going up, wrecking the economy and dragging us down to the level of mainland Europe with its 10% unemployment.

Wrong. For example, Switzerland.

B: A Eurostate would have a common army. We could be conscripted into it and forced into wars we do not want.

That really is the basest of scare-mongering crap I’ve heard in a while - do you have any evidence other than your own paranoia for any of those assumptions?

C: The men and women of 1916 did not die for a European superstate.

So what?

It was hard enough getting independence in the first place. Something hard fought for should not be surrendered so easily.

Isn’t it a little hypocritical for someone who argued that they were “more concerned with the 21st century than the 80's” is suddenly all precious about history?

E: Don't want unelected Brussels bureaucrats and Franco-German imperialists running my life.

Then, as I’ve already suggested (you didn’t acknowledge it though), campaign for democratisations of those roles and stop using this as an excuse to justify your xenophobia.

New_Departure06

The only time 3% is mentioned is with relation to those people who are “unwilling to commit themselves to either the 'British', 'Ulster' or 'Irish' labels” in the DUP. Indeed it showed that the identity favoured amongst the DUP was neither ‘British’ or ‘Irish’, but ‘Ulster’.

What? You must be reading the wrong table. Just before the table is written:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm#religion

Given the clearly delineated boundaries between the two communities in Northern Ireland, it might be assumed that national identity and religion are virtually synonymous. Indeed, 'Catholic' and 'nationalist', and 'Protestant' and 'unionist', respectively, are often used interchangeably. However, the evidence from four attitude surveys, including the present one, shows that there are important exceptions to this. It can be seen that, although most Protestants feel 'British' and most Catholics feel 'Irish', it is far from being a universal rule. In 1968, just before the onset of civil unrest in Northern Ireland, 20% of Protestants claimed to feel 'Irish'. Ten years later, after having borne the brunt of the IRA campaign, Protestants have swung more definitely towards adopting the label 'British'. This swing is confirmed by the David Smith survey of 1986 reported in Whyte (1990) and by the present survey.

That should help you find the table I am talking about.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

What? You must be reading the wrong table. Just before the table is written:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/research/nisas/rep1c2.htm#religion

This still returns us to the fact that what you’re highlighting is not so much that they don’t feel Irish, but that they identify more with ‘Ulster’, ‘Northern Irish’ or even ‘British’ - which brings us back to my point that it’s more that they don’t feel like your kind of Irish.

Oh, and feel free to answer my other points.

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

This still returns us to the fact that what you’re highlighting is not so much that they don’t feel Irish, but that they identify more with ‘Ulster’, ‘Northern Irish’ or even ‘British’ - which brings us back to my point that it’s more that they don’t feel like your kind of Irish.

Oh, and feel free to answer my other points.

Name 1 Unionist who considers himself Irish.

I hope the newcomers feel more Irish than them. They felt so Irish they partitioned Ireland.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Name 1 Unionist who considers himself Irish.

You're not really listening are you? Many Unionists identify themselves as Northern Irish, British or with Ulster, not because they don’t identify with being Irish (none of those exclude being Irish any more than being British or an Essex man excludes being English) - but because they do not identify with your version of Irish.

I hope the newcomers feel more Irish than them. They felt so Irish they partitioned Ireland.

And, let’s call a spade a spade; given the decimation of the protestant population in the south following independence and the ridiculous level of influence the Roman Catholic Church had in dictating public policy, they probably had a point.

Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to address my other points.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Wrong. For example, Switzerland.

/me nods.

Tax here is partially determined at a townland level, partially at a Cantonal level, and partially at a national level. Oh, and your religion also has an effect too, just in case it wasn't complicated enough.

jc

New_Departure06

And, let’s call a spade a spade; given the decimation of the protestant population in the south following independence and the ridiculous level of influence the Roman Catholic Church had in dictating public policy, they probably had a point.

Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to address my other points.

The Protestant % had already been declining since 1870. The causes of the decline were a mixture of British land agents going home after the compulsory breakup of the large estates at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century, then the Ne Temere Decree of Pope Pius X in 1909 which required the children of mixed-marriages to be brought up as Catholics, and then the customary exodus of loyalists that customarily happens after revolutions, including the US and the former Soviet Union states of Central Asia (from which millions of ethnic Russians departed after the SU broke up). I don't think we are to blame.

You're not really listening are you? Many Unionists identify themselves as Northern Irish, British or with Ulster, not because they don’t identify with being Irish (none of those exclude being Irish any more than being British or an Essex man excludes being English) - but because they do not identify with your version of Irish.

The poll findings I have shown you include the "Northern Irish" option as a distinct one from "Irish".