Why does Ireland have no right wing nationalist party?

dsmythy

Rossibaby wrote: »

out of interest have none of ye heard of INP,irish nationalist party....they exist alright,very small i'd say max 20,30 members but they do exist...few motnsh back some polish bet a member up down in kerry i think it was....INP are bunch of racists he deserved it

Im pretty sure that organisation didn't exist. It was all in the mind of one or two men. Even if it did exist to that level it is dead and buried now.

Rossibaby

no it existed dsmythy and the tools running it were spreading their filth up until recent times...the last time i heard them was the incident at a meeting with the polish lads....that was a few months back alright though...yes they existed alright but the numbers thank god were very low

Rossibaby

the_syco wrote: »

The BNP hates everyone but the white people, it would seem. SF wants more foreigners in, once they're not english, it would seem.

that is disgraceful to claim Provisional sinn fein are like the BNP....i think the BNP are not just exclusively pro-white but white protestant???

im no sinn fein supporter but it is very unfair to label them as such,their goal is a 32 county socialist republic,that is their goal. english people are as welcome here as anyone else as are protestants:)republicans such as sinn fein do not want the 'british' people living here to pack up and leave, but for republican and unionist people to realise the benefits of a untied ireland for all involved and to end sectarianism.cross community engagement on common social issues is the goal....how is this in any way related to the BNP??? surely the PD's would be more like BNP as they are the most right wing party here.

guinnessdrinker

I suppose if you were to look at all the parties on the island North and South, the DUP would probably be the most right wing imo and look at how popular they are among their voters.

Liam Byrne

Rossibaby wrote: »

that is disgraceful to claim Provisional sinn fein are like the BNP....i think the BNP are not just exclusively pro-white but white protestant???

That's hilarious....I can't speak for SF's stance on white vs black, but aren't they definitely pro-catholic (whatever that means, since catholics - or at least christians - wouldn't actually support violence and killing. Would say that the same should apply for catholics, but then someone would mention the crusades and stuff....

im no sinn fein supporter but it is very unfair to label them as such,their goal is a 32 county socialist republic,that is their goal. english people are as welcome here as anyone else as are protestants:)republicans such as sinn fein do not want the 'british' people living here to pack up and leave, but for republican and unionist people to realise the benefits of a untied ireland for all involved and to end sectarianism.cross community engagement on common social issues is the goal....how is this in any way related to the BNP??? surely the PD's would be more like BNP as they are the most right wing party here.

I think the fact that the word "nationalist" is (mis)used when describing their mindset, plus the blinkered support of violence is the main similarity - which maybe and hopefully is changing now (fingers crossed).

And yeah, it's true that the PDs are as blinkered in their "privatise the lot" Daft Dave style of politics....it was required to jolt the economy, but they've gone too far to the point where we have almost no social services and where EVERY initiative by the Government (green issues, etc) is purely a money-making exercise, i.e. let's tax the people more for doing whatever wasteful stuff they used to do (fair enough) but without providing any possible alternative (not fair enough).

But since SF showed themselves up completely (in a new sense, because they'd previously done that by having their leaders pose for photos with murderers) in the election campaign by not having a clue how to budget or run a country in any shape or form (i.e. they were even more clueless than FF) I can't see how they can convince anyone that there would be a benefit in an All-Ireland country.

It's almost a separate topic, though.....

The_Minister

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And yeah, it's true that the PDs are as blinkered in their "privatise the lot" Daft Dave style of politics....it was required to jolt the economy, but they've gone too far to the point where we have almost no social services and where EVERY initiative by the Government (green issues, etc) is purely a money-making exercise, i.e. let's tax the people more for doing whatever wasteful stuff they used to do (fair enough) but without providing any possible alternative (not fair enough).

Except that that isn't what they believe at all. For example: http://www.progressivedemocrats.ie/press_room/2424/.
Here we have a case where competition is working so well, that the councils are trying to stop it, because they can't compete with the private companies. The private companies are recycling more of their waste than the public service, and are doing it at a lower price to the consumer. Yet, an unelected bureaucrat is trying to stop this, and drag prices back up and quality back down, and only the Progressive Democrats have said anything (so far). The difference in price is over €100 per person in my area, if this county manager gets his way.
Competition, properly managed, works well for the consumer.
Despite what some people would have you believe, a fat, over-bearing state is not the only answer.

If a service can be provided by the private sector, at lower cost and higher quality than the public sector, then it should be.

Rossibaby wrote: »

the PD's would be more like BNP as they are the most right wing party here.

The Progressive Democrats have nothing in common with the BNP. The BNP are a nationalist, protectionalist party, just like Sinn Fein. Policy-wise, and in terms of support demographics, the BNP would have far more in common with SF.
Right-wing is a stupid label used by political ignorants, ALL parties in Ireland are a mix of Left and Right wing, and if you want to understand anything about them, you have to also use the Liberal-Authoritarian axis. If you do that, then the Progressive Democrats and the BNP are on opposite sides.

Rossibaby

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's hilarious....I can't speak for SF's stance on white vs black, but aren't they definitely pro-catholic (whatever that means, since catholics - or at least christians - wouldn't actually support violence and killing. Would say that the same should apply for catholics, but then someone would mention the crusades and stuff....



I think the fact that the word "nationalist" is (mis)used when describing their mindset, plus the blinkered support of violence is the main similarity - which maybe and hopefully is changing now (fingers crossed).

And yeah, it's true that the PDs are as blinkered in their "privatise the lot" Daft Dave style of politics....it was required to jolt the economy, but they've gone too far to the point where we have almost no social services and where EVERY initiative by the Government (green issues, etc) is purely a money-making exercise, i.e. let's tax the people more for doing whatever wasteful stuff they used to do (fair enough) but without providing any possible alternative (not fair enough).

But since SF showed themselves up completely (in a new sense, because they'd previously done that by having their leaders pose for photos with murderers) in the election campaign by not having a clue how to budget or run a country in any shape or form (i.e. they were even more clueless than FF) I can't see how they can convince anyone that there would be a benefit in an All-Ireland country.

It's almost a separate topic, though.....

what's hilarious,they are in no way pro-catholic

no nationalist is not mis-used when describing sinn fein,it just can have a multitude of meanings....they are nationalist in the sense they want a united ireland and are not republican anymore.they are not republican because to be republican means no acknowledgement of stormont and policing ans such issues...they are nationalist because they want a united ireland but to not abide by some of the core stances associated with republicanism

Fratton Fred

Het-Field wrote: »

I have seen two documentaries about the British National Party. One was the 2002 Channel Four Documentary "Young Nazi and Proud", and the other was the 2004 infiltration. It exposed the BNP as a disgusings racist organisation. Leader Nick Griffin regularly qualified his statements with "i would get seven years in prison for saying this. Beyond the BNP there are even more disgusing organisation. Groups like the EFP BPP WNP and GBB are far more extreme (which speaks volumes about them) then the BNP.

Did the documentary also go on to explain how many BNP MPs there are? what about this nasty monster which speaks volumes about the English, how many local councillors do the BNP have?

When you take a look at the BNP, in real terms they are less popular then the monster raving loony party.

djpbarry

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

And if we need to plug holes in engineering, science and the health service we should first of all be plugging them with Irish people.

And how do you propose "we" do that?

dsmythy wrote: »

If we had a goal for 20% of the population not to be Irish then people may think differently about that.

What would be the point in such a "goal"?

dsmythy wrote: »

Not everyone is so materialistic and you have to wonder who the loudest voices are when you hear them saying "We need them". My opinion is they are not the average worker out there in general and that they tend to be people making money out of cheap labour.

So you don't think we need immigrants?

dsmythy wrote: »

I'd hardly call the ICP a party.

They certainly seem to think they are. They had a guy running in my constituency in the last election.

rowlandbrowner

dsmythy wrote: »

Why not? Nobody had to accept the Irish when they went around the world and we shouldn't have to accept people if we don't want to. Except EU nationals of course. We have lost that right.

so if it wasn't for those pesky lawmakers in Brussels you'd be rounding up immigrants by the masses, yeah?

cheridere

berliner wrote: »

Ireland must be one of the few countries who don't have a party similar to the BNP in Britain.Why?

An Irish far right party wouldnt last pissing time, the far leftys(you know who you are) would have them kneecapped before they got the posters up.
But seriously
There are plenty of people in Ireland with similiar views to the BNP but they are not stupid enough to put their head above water for people to use as target practice (to busy working)

A downturn in the economy might bring them out..


Anyway I think the real nutters are the people who can go from a thread about the lack of far right wing politics in this country to Holocaust denier accusations in a couple of posts.

M

djpbarry

cheridere wrote: »

There are plenty of people in Ireland with similiar views to the BNP but they are not stupid enough to put their head above water for people to use as target practice (to busy working)

A downturn in the economy might bring them out..

Indeed it might, although I sincerely hope there are not "plenty" of them. There are elements within every society who need someone or something to blame for their problems - immigrants are an easy target.

guinnessdrinker

djpbarry wrote: »

Indeed it might, although I sincerely hope there are not "plenty" of them. There are elements within every society who need someone or something to blame for their problems - immigrants are an easy target.

This is true. I remember attending a SWP meeting (don't ask!) around '99 when I was in college. This was when immigrants were begining to arrive. Anyway one of the things the speaker said was that if the economy goes downhill and jobs start being lost, scapegoats will be looked for. Unfortunatly, as DJP has pointed out, imigrants are easy targets.

So even without a far right party, there could be still a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment if things go wrong. The speaker also said, initially the government of the day could turn a blind eye to these sentiments as it would take the public focus of the failure of their economic policies. Hopefully this will never become a reality though.

daithicarr

why should Ireland have a far right party?
Why should any country?
a dislike for other races/peoples/cultures largely stems from a fear of the "other" and ignorance.
there also seems to be a widely held belief amongst many people i meet from around the world that the genetics of different races causes social problems and differences.
Like irish Travellers or american black people are more prone to crime or stupidity due to their genetics, some countrys are superior in some fields compared to others, are due to genetics.

there is no real genetic difference bewteen different races , except in appearance. most differences are social. for example some one mentioned that there were a lot of people with downsyndrom (dont know how to spell it) in Ireland compared to their country and the other people from their country in the group agreed that there is more mentally handycapped irish people than in many European countrys, they put this down to genetic differences. it later transpired in the conversation that when there was a chance of a child being born in their country with a severare mental or physical defect the pregnancy was usually aborted. I pointed out that we however do not have abortion and that perhaps the more visible presence of disabilitys was due to this fact rather than some hidden genetic flaw.
most these judgements on Racial differences come form a lack of understanding of social differences and lack of logical thought. more effort should be made to educate people when in school at a young age, that there is little or no genetic difference between races. just social.

The_Minister

Actually, even taking abortio into account, we have one of the highest rates of downsyndrome in the world. We have IIRC also the highest number of Cystic Fibrosis carriers in the world.
There are genetic differences between people and races, beyond genetic ones.
Irish people won't get sickle-cell anemia(sp?) for instane, but 10% of Sub-Saharan Africans have it.

Liam Byrne

they are not republican because to be republican means no acknowledgement of stormont and policing ans such issues

???? I'm definitely not a republican so.....and there was me thinking that I was, because I support the Republic of Ireland (something not even recognised by so-called republicans).

I must be wrong, though, coz surely SF & the IRA know more about these things ? I mean, they use the tricolour as "their" emblem, don't they ? GREEN+PEACE+ORANGE

As for the IRA being pro-catholic, I can't remember reading anywhere that they ever killed a catholic, but they did kill protestants, but maybe I'm wrong again.....maybe one of the people in Omagh was catholic, or maybe Gerry McCabe was ?

But yeah, I'm with Daithi.......live and let live; people should be judged by their values, beliefs, actions and contributions, rather than accidents of geography and suchlike....some immigrants are spongers, dossers and criminals, that's true, but we have plenty of "our own" of those types :P

spank_inferno

It does seem unusual that almost all parties are "centralist"
it could be down to the fact that our democracy is still relatively young.
Born out of a civil war mabey our parties in time will become more 'right/left' alligned.
We didnt have the intense level of industrialisation britain had so that might have impacted the growth of labour/workers movement also

oscarBravo

Discussion of Sinn Féin and/or any northern issues is off-topic, let's leave it out please.

dsmythy

If we had a goal for 20% of the population not to be Irish then people may think differently about that.

What would be the point in such a "goal"?

I couldn't tell you. When people talk about immigration being great they fail to mention when (or if) they think it is not so good. People may be happy to go along with immigration if they are not told how many are expected to come but tell them 50% of the population will not be Irish then obviously they would not. Of course that is never going to happen but 20% wouldn't be out the the question.
The only reason anyone would call for an amount of migrants to come that might make up such high percentages of the total population is this apparant need we have of them.



Not everyone is so materialistic and you have to wonder who the loudest voices are when you hear them saying "We need them". My opinion is they are not the average worker out there in general and that they tend to be people making money out of cheap labour.

So you don't think we need immigrants?

If we want the levels of growth we have had then we need them. My problem isn't immigration to Ireland, it is large scale immigration. If our immigrant population reduces it is not the end of the world. We can get by with any lower economic growth levels caused by a reduction in migrants.
What if we needed 1 million immigrants next year? Obviously an exaggerated figure but the point is how far do we go in our need for our immigrant/money fixes?

dsmythy

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

so if it wasn't for those pesky lawmakers in Brussels you'd be rounding up immigrants by the masses, yeah?

There wouldn't be the need. They probably wouldn't of come at the levels they did. At least we would have the option to choose the numbers.

dsmythy

daithicarr wrote: »

why should Ireland have a far right party?

Who wants a far right party?

a dislike for other races/peoples/cultures largely stems from a fear of the "other" and ignorance.

That distrust might be due to old primal instincts still flickering inside humanity.

there is no real genetic difference bewteen different races , except in appearance. most differences are social.

Genetic research is continuing to develop. The differences are not just in appearance as someone else has mentioned with Cystic Fibrosis in Ireland. Of course any differences don't have to translate automatically into conclusions of superiority.

I pointed out that we however do not have abortion and that perhaps the more visible presence of disabilitys was due to this fact rather than some hidden genetic flaw.

I don't know the statistics with regards to other countries without abortion but Ireland would still be coming out pretty high in the list. Besides is abortion that popular that it could cause such a lower rate of disability?

most these judgements on Racial differences come form a lack of understanding of social differences and lack of logical thought. more effort should be made to educate people when in school at a young age, that there is little or no genetic difference between races. just social.

But what if the differences are gradually found to be true? Better just educate them that everyone is different but equal. And of course if genetics go the other way and tell us we are all the same then that can be taught in civics and science classes all around the world.

gordon_gekko

spank_inferno wrote: »

It does seem unusual that almost all parties are "centralist"
it could be down to the fact that our democracy is still relatively young.
Born out of a civil war mabey our parties in time will become more 'right/left' alligned.
We didnt have the intense level of industrialisation britain had so that might have impacted the growth of labour/workers movement also

personally i believe the reason we have so many centralist parties is due to us being a very unidealofical people by nature
most irish people are fence sitters
its a catholic thing in some ways , we are not ones for seeing things in black and white , unlike our unionists neighbours up north for example

Fratton Fred

gordon_gekko wrote: »

personally i believe the reason we have so many centralist parties is due to us being a very unidealofical people by nature
most irish people are fence sitters
its a catholic thing in some ways , we are not ones for seeing things in black and white , unlike our unionists neighbours up north for example

I don't think religion has anything to do with it. To compare with British politics you had Labour, struggling to promote the trade union movement and promote workers rights and Tory, conservative whig etc who traditionally looked after the well being of the upper classes.

In Ireland labour was replaced by the republican movement, so Nationalism and Socialism became intertwinned. after independance, Ireland ended up with a legacy of workers parties who were republican socialists and the right wing never really took off. Also, as I said earlier, in Britain a lot is blamed on immigrants, in Ireland they just blame the British. Dislike for the British is not seen as racism, it is seen as a normal thing for the Irish to do.

To me, it is no coincidence that Sinn Fein goes a long way to show it's left wing credentials, firstly to promote free health care as that is probably one of the biggest factors going against unification and also to show that they are not a nationalist party.

stovelid

Off the top of my head:

Closed society with little of no immigrant population until recently

Major politcial groups are based along national (civil war) fault lines

Agrarian past - no significant industrial history

'The national question' has always trumped labour struggles. Hence 1916 rather than 1913.

Might be stretching this one, but in the North, perhaps it's credible to believe that classic far-right tropes - racism, violent reaction to recessionary shifts in labour privilege within an industrial society; links to right-wing ideologues; fear of the 'other' - were subsumed and 'normalized' within sections of Loyalist paramilitarism?

djpbarry

dsmythy wrote: »

When people talk about immigration being great they fail to mention when (or if) they think it is not so good.

Well, that doesn't really make sense. Migration of people has been a constant throughout history; one cannot label it "good" or "bad", it is merely a fact. In the same way, one cannot say that trade is "good" or "bad".

dsmythy wrote: »

Of course that is never going to happen but 20% wouldn't be out the the question.

And this would be bad?

It is certainly possible, but it depends on economic conditions in Ireland, as well as economic conditions in other EU states. It would not surprise me at all if, in the next 10-20 years, Irish people begin to emigrate en masse to the likes of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Czech Rep, etc., as they experience their own "Celtic Tigers", in the same way that we have received migrants from more "established" economies within the EU, the UK in particular.

dsmythy wrote: »

The only reason anyone would call for an amount of migrants to come that might make up such high percentages of the total population is this apparant need we have of them.

You seem to have this idea that migrants are "called upon" by some senior official in Ireland, that there is some quota to be filled?

dsmythy wrote: »

If we want the levels of growth we have had then we need them.

Indeed we do. Economic growth is a good thing, right?

dsmythy wrote: »

My problem isn't immigration to Ireland, it is large scale immigration.

Ah yes, that old nugget. So how many is enough? 10? 100? 1,000? How many is too many?

dsmythy wrote: »

If our immigrant population reduces it is not the end of the world. We can get by with any lower economic growth levels caused by a reduction in migrants.

So the priority for you is reducing the level of immigration into Ireland and reducing the number of foreign nationals living/working in Ireland, even if this is done at the expense of economic growth? I would imagine that puts you in the extreme minority.

What difference does it make where workers come from? They're all paying tax which benefits all of us.

dsmythy wrote: »

Obviously an exaggerated figure but the point is how far do we go in our need for our immigrant/money fixes?

Let's look at it on the small scale; there is a job available somewhere in Ireland, but there is no-one in the area at the present time who is (a) qualified to do the job or (b) interested in doing the job. So someone in another area (nationality is irrelevant, in my opinion) is interested in the job and migrates to the area in question to take said job. Everybody wins - the employer fills the position, the employee makes themselves some money and the exchequer is boosted by more tax revenue, which benefits all of us.

Migration is largely self-regulating; an individual is very unlikely to move to an area where there are no jobs available. If the number of jobs available in Ireland (or anywhere else for that matter) decreases, then migration to Ireland will also decrease. You will obviously still get some speculative migrants, who are prepared to take their chances, but I would imagine they are in the minority, as most people would need some level of security (i.e. a place to stay or a job to get by) before moving to a new area.

rowlandbrowner

dsmythy wrote: »

If we want the levels of growth we have had then we need them. My problem isn't immigration to Ireland, it is large scale immigration.

He seems to correctly understand the economic need for immigration fine; his worries seem to be about too many of THEM polluting his nationality.

I too miss my primary school days when everyone was a white catholic and our idea of eating out was ordering from the chipper, instead of this injection of new cultures, beautiful women, hearing my friends talk about the interesting and contrasting upbringings they had in countries I’ve havn't yet had a chance to visit, but I guess thats the price we pay for all the monetary benefits WE get from THEM.

I like to remind any of the anti-immigration crowd that like it or not Ireland is part of a free travel/work zone, and whatever you think of it, its far better than living in say, America, building bigger fences around your borders and watching dangerous bigits like Bill O'Reily tell you that THEY are out to get you.

billy the squid

cheridere wrote: »

An Irish far right party wouldnt last pissing time, the far leftys(you know who you are) would have them kneecapped before they got the posters up.
But seriously
There are plenty of people in Ireland with similiar views to the BNP but they are not stupid enough to put their head above water for people to use as target practice (to busy working)

A downturn in the economy might bring them out..


Anyway I think the real nutters are the people who can go from a thread about the lack of far right wing politics in this country to Holocaust denier accusations in a couple of posts.

M

That is horse ****. if it were true then they would have used their Secret ballot to vote for the likes of the ICP. They did have four candidates in the last election.

As for the intimidation of those with political views, those on the far right are just as guilty of that. whether it be posting people's photos or addresses on extreme websites, or sending groups like the NCCRI threatening letters.

dsmythy

Originally Posted by dsmythy
When people talk about immigration being great they fail to mention when (or if) they think it is not so good.

Well, that doesn't really make sense. Migration of people has been a constant throughout history; one cannot label it "good" or "bad", it is merely a fact. In the same way, one cannot say that trade is "good" or "bad".

Many of these migrations were invasions. People tended not to have any choice. We have the option on who to allow enter the country. This fact of migrating peoples can be a good thing or a disaster depending on migration to migration. Will this new embraced migration be a good thing for this country's future? Nobody can say for sure. I think it could end badly.


Originally Posted by dsmythy
Of course that is never going to happen but 20% wouldn't be out the the question.

And this would be bad?
It is certainly possible, but it depends on economic conditions in Ireland, as well as economic conditions in other EU states. It would not surprise me at all if, in the next 10-20 years, Irish people begin to emigrate en masse to the likes of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Czech Rep, etc., as they experience their own "Celtic Tigers", in the same way that we have received migrants from more "established" economies within the EU, the UK in particular.

Again we get into statistics. When would it not be good, 20% or 60%, and what not. Again nobody knows as fact the general implications of large scale immigration to Ireland. Again as above i think the implications may be bad. So all i can do is suggest a level that is to be the complete maximum to try and offset any doubts i wouild have for the future. 20% at the very, very maximum is all i would be comfortable with.
And as you say in that second part of your post putting the 20% "rule" or whatever you might call it could be pointless in the end if demographics shift away from Western migration in Europe. I'd still go with it though in the event it is needed.


Originally Posted by dsmythy
The only reason anyone would call for an amount of migrants to come that might make up such high percentages of the total population is this apparant need we have of them.

You seem to have this idea that migrants are "called upon" by some senior official in Ireland, that there is some quota to be filled?

Well the politicians keep telling us we need them. The more we say we need them the more that will come. When we don't need them they will know about it and not come. The only quota out there is the increase in population needed to keep growth levels as they are. If that figure points to over 20% being non-Irish by the time that population figure is reached i'd like to see the 20% being the upper most figure. I could go even lower depending on various situations.


Originally Posted by dsmythy
My problem isn't immigration to Ireland, it is large scale immigration.

Ah yes, that old nugget. So how many is enough? 10? 100? 1,000? How many is too many?

Ah sure you'll find plenty of old nuggets in these types of discussions What is too much? 20% non-Irish as i mentioned earlier perhaps? Maybe lower. 10% would be perfect but i have to go within reason.


Originally Posted by dsmythy
If our immigrant population reduces it is not the end of the world. We can get by with any lower economic growth levels caused by a reduction in migrants.

So the priority for you is reducing the level of immigration into Ireland and reducing the number of foreign nationals living/working in Ireland, even if this is done at the expense of economic growth? I would imagine that puts you in the extreme minority.

What difference does it make where workers come from? They're all paying tax which benefits all of us.

I guess it does put me in a minority. Does it mean i should just be quiet about my opinions? Of course not. The difference is the dilution of cultures I believe would be caused by modern permanent migration to and within Europe if left to continue a current levels non-stop into the future. In 50 years time the various cultures today that make up Ireland would be shadows of themselves. Then travel to France, Spain, Italy etc. They might be all too similar to Ireland. All of them very similar cultures derived from the multiculture of today. I enjoy diversity in Europe as it is found today among the separate nations.
If we need a certain number of workers that i might consider a large proportion or is one that breaks the theoretical 20% figure then temporary 5 year visas can be issued to them and strictly be abided by and enforced. They can fill the job gaps that you mention.

I should probably label myself anti-mass-permanent-immigration to be totally accurate. Becomes a mouthful after a while.

fly_agaric

djpbarry wrote:

It is certainly possible, but it depends on economic conditions in Ireland, as well as economic conditions in other EU states. It would not surprise me at all if, in the next 10-20 years, Irish people begin to emigrate en masse to the likes of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Czech Rep, etc

I have to say that is hardly very likely given the fact that English is not the main, or even just a widely used language in any of those places.
Because of this as much as their present relative "poverty" it would really take a total economic apocalypse in Ireland before we'd be emigrating in numbers to these nations instead of the more usual ones we've tended to go for. Timewarp back to the 80s would not be enough - more like back to the "Emergency"!

djpbarry wrote:

Indeed we do. Economic growth is a good thing, right?

What's so great about "Economic Growth" caused solely by immigration? It's good for the immigrants if they get a fair share but that is it. It's not really "your own" population so it wouldn't even appeal to some nuts who might like to see Ireland become a great power in the world ( a little green South Korea as I think one very pro-immigration poster I recall used to fondly imagine the Ireland of the future...)

djpbarry wrote:

Migration is largely self-regulating

Why would you believe some kind of "invisible hand" bolllox when it comes to movement of people when you probably do not believe in it when it come to distribution of capital, resourses, wealth etc? Migration is just somewhat rather than largely self-regulating. The difficulty and expesnse of both getting the requisite info and then of the travel itself has been mitigated greatly in this modern world so its actually alot less "self-regulating" than ever before IMO.

dsmythy

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

He seems to correctly understand the economic need for immigration fine; his worries seem to be about too many of THEM polluting his nationality.

I too miss my primary school days when everyone was a white catholic and our idea of eating out was ordering from the chipper, instead of this injection of new cultures, beautiful women, hearing my friends talk about the interesting and contrasting upbringings they had in countries I’ve havn't yet had a chance to visit, but I guess thats the price we pay for all the monetary benefits WE get from THEM.

I like to remind any of the anti-immigration crowd that like it or not Ireland is part of a free travel/work zone, and whatever you think of it, its far better than living in say, America, building bigger fences around your borders and watching dangerous bigits like Bill O'Reily tell you that THEY are out to get you.

We'll always have enough immigration to fulfill your dietary needs.

I've always found all countries as having equal numbers of good and bad looking women.

Sure nobody need travel the world to meet new cultures if they're all on your doorstep. You can always go visit other cultures and compare. I'm not anti-immigration full stop. You could still mingle with other cultures that arrive here.

Monetary benefits? You mean all the rich people out there getting richer of them while the poor become poorer? Including poor migrants?

I look at Britain and continental Europe as my examples of where this could lead since they are more relevant to us than the States. No-one can claim 100% final success of their immigration projects. And if they do we can copy them.