Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Our country is already extremely diverse. Diversity is okay in moderation, just like food. Too much diversity though will only lead to the societal problems seen in countries like France and the UK, where societal cohesion is undermined by an absence of communality. That is not - of course - the fault of the immigrants but it is something for politicians to consider.I would also, in that context, remind you of the studies by respected professor Robert Puttnam (whom FF consulted on "social capital" in 2004) to the effect that more multicultural societies have less social-trust.

Ah, the old xenophobic argument. It might have escaped your notice that public policy is to promote inter-culturalism rather than multi-culturalism.

But couldn't it also said that perhaps he came to this view from experience, rather than having opposed it originally?

When you are reduced to citing the obiter dicta of an Irish District Justice, you are in sorry need of good authorities to support your arguments.

Was there not a major difference in demographic trends arising from the 2004 Enlargement relative to past Enlargements e.g. Spain/Portugal with respect to the impact on Ireland? Speaking personally, I am not sure I would have voted for Nice had I known the scale of the influx that would come after Enlargement. It's not that I am against immigration - I am not. But I believe there are only so many people this island can support.

What drove people to come here? It wasn't Nice; it was our recently-deceased Celtic Tomcat, and labour shortages.

worldrepublic

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is a difference between concern about terrorism, or having a co-ordinated approach to terrorism, or even participating in a struggle against terrorism, and being involved in the "War on Terror" -- because the "War on Terror" is a label applied by the Bush administration to a US policy approach that is focused on the Islamic world, and is something of a scattergun approach, based on a highly questionable view of the world.

Bear in mind that terrorism is not solely the preserve of extreme Islamists. ETA, for example, have been active again recently.

Totally, but ETA are sympathetic with Al Quaeda. Sky News reported that ETA may have been working with "elements" of Al Quaeda. That's how big this thing is....

FutureTaoiseach

P.Breathnach wrote:

Ah, the old xenophobic argument. It might have escaped your notice that public policy is to promote inter-culturalism rather than multi-culturalism.

Ah - the old PC argument - that anyone who calls for tighter controls must be "xenophobic". :rolleyes: Well that won't wash any more. It is the policy I am criticising - not the immigrants. Closing down debate isn't going to help anyone. Democracy demands debate and dissent.

RandomName2

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Ah, the old xenophobic argument. It might have escaped your notice that public policy is to promote inter-culturalism rather than multi-culturalism.


What drove people to come here? It wasn't Nice; it was our recently-deceased Celtic Tomcat, and labour shortages.

Personally I believe in paraculturalism, though superculturalism has its merits.

Nobody is saying that Nice drove anyone here, no more than a petrol station drives anybody anywhere - but it certainly can help in transportation.

Ultimately the responsibility of too many eastern european workers seeking employment in Ireland lies with the government who chose not to impliment any measures to limit the numbers of migrant workers - purely on the grounds of an economic bubble. Despite Spain's similar economic bubble predicated on a building boom, the government there took measures to curb an over-inflation of this type of labour; and Spain being a hell of a lot bigger than Ireland is far better suited to changes to its demographics.

worldrepublic

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Ah - the old PC argument - that anyone who calls for tighter controls must be "xenophobic". :rolleyes: Well that won't wash any more. It is the policy I am criticising - not the immigrants. Closing down debate isn't going to help anyone. Democracy demands debate and dissent.

Your argument does not take account of the larger facts and demographics. Ireland has such a small population. It could be accelerated to c. 20 million. This will mean a truly diverse culture, and we will increase our profile in Europe. Change can be a bit disconcerting, but as Obama said:

"Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential."
-President Obama

FutureTaoiseach

worldrepublic wrote: »

Your argument does not take account of the larger facts and demographics. Ireland has such a small population. It could be accelerated to c. 20 million. This will mean a truly diverse culture, and we will increase our profile in Europe. Change can be a bit disconcerting, but as Obama said:

"Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential."
-President Obama

Don't we get a say in this, or is it like Lisbon where the only acceptable answer is yes? :rolleyes:

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Ah - the old PC argument - that anyone who calls for tighter controls must be "xenophobic". :rolleyes:

It's generally a valid interpretation. I know the standard code. It's right up there with "some of my best friends are ...".

Well that won't wash any more. It is the policy I am criticising - not the immigrants.

It was our own policy, not one forced on us by the EU.

Closing down debate isn't going to help anyone.

Who's closing down debate? Don't even pretend that you are victimised here.

Democracy demands debate and dissent.

Debate is fine; dissent is not always necessary -- only the right to dissent is necessary. On the subject of what is demanded: debate demands truth and relevance. Show me how our vote on Lisbon has anything whatsoever to do with immigration. Or am I right in suggesting that you are simply playing the xenophobia card, and am I right in thinking that you are doing it dishonestly?

worldrepublic

P. Breathnach said: "Debate is fine; dissent is not always necessary -- only the right to dissent is necessary."

That is completely incorrect. Dissent is actually a prerequisite for debate. Without dissent from the establishment or official position, there would only be one position, or one side, i.e. the establishment position. How can there be a debate as to the validity of an official policy, without dissent?

Neither should you have added the tag "dishonest" to your criticisms of the dissenter.

As to the issue of immigration, we can both agree that is has been and is a good trend from our European perspective. Ireland has a small population that can be accelerated to 20 million. This would make Ireland a more substantial player in Europe. These are the key considerations and demographics.

FutureTaoiseach

P.Breathnach wrote:

Debate is fine; dissent is not always necessary -- only the right to dissent is necessary. On the subject of what is demanded: debate demands truth and relevance. Show me how our vote on Lisbon has anything whatsoever to do with immigration. Or am I right in suggesting that you are simply playing the xenophobia card, and am I right in thinking that you are doing it dishonestly?

It is human nature to seek to better oneself economically, but the general good of society sometimes requires the desires of human beings to be tempered by government in the general interest. That includes the desire to immigrate imho. Nothing to do with racism. I just don't want what happened to the staff in Irish Ferries some years ago to become a general pattern in this economy. I'm sure you'd agree that it would not exactly be good for intercommunal relations were it to do so. Furthermore, recent reports in the Mail about persons resident outside the State flying in to claim social-welfare and then flying out is not desirable.

Now what does Lisbon have to do with immigration? There is the power to enter the Schengen Agreement, which the proposed new Article 29.4.7 of the Irish Constitution - part of the Lisbon referendum though not the Treaty itself - will facilitate. It would abolish passport controls on travel between Ireland and the 25 Schengen countries. Once here, an illegal immigrant can claim asylum, and some asylum-seekers are entitled to social-welfare. Yes - I know we have Irish people who abuse the welfare system aswell, but when the average salary back home is a fraction of the weekly social-welfare payment in this country, the incentive is obviously greater. Then there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of which Article 19 is a particular concern because it outlaws "collective expulsions" - legalese which will inevitably result in challenges in the ECJ to Irish deportation-orders. The legal-profession in Leinster House will love that, as asylum has been a goldmine for them e.g. free legal-aid. Whether it's good for a country €21 billion in deficit is another matter. I think not. When you have travelled across Europe to get to Ireland to claim asylum, it seems risible to suggest that safety only arrived when you stepped foot on these shores, as opposed, for example, to the UK or France. :rolleyes:

PopeBuckfastXVI

I must be imagining the Asylum Seekers that arrived up to this point, before we have joined Schengen so

Not that Lisbon means we *will* join Schengen, when afaik we already have that option with or without Lisbon.

BTW, I'm totally anti-immigration, I just want to see a lot more of it... :rolleyes:

P. Breathnach

worldrepublic wrote: »

P. Breathnach said: "Debate is fine; dissent is not always necessary -- only the right to dissent is necessary."

That is completely incorrect. Dissent is actually a prerequisite for debate. Without dissent from the establishment or official position, there would only be one position, or one side, i.e. the establishment position. How can there be a debate as to the validity of an official policy, without dissent?

I think that you fail to understand my point: there are some things where there is no need for dissent or debate -- for example: things on which we have full consensus, or things that are factually true beyond all reasonable argument.

Neither should you have added the tag "dishonest" to your criticisms of the dissenter.

I posed it is the form of a question as a challenge to FutureTaoiseach. Am I not entitled to think that he is debating dishonestly? And please note that I do not criticize people here: I sometimes criticize particular behaviours.

As to the issue of immigration, we can both agree that is has been and is a good trend from our European perspective. Ireland has a small population that can be accelerated to 20 million. This would make Ireland a more substantial player in Europe. These are the key considerations and demographics.

And if we got to 150 million, would we be better again?

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It is human nature to seek to better oneself economically, but the general good of society sometimes requires the desires of human beings to be tempered by government in the general interest. That includes the desire to immigrate imho. Nothing to do with racism. I just don't want what happened to the staff in Irish Ferries some years ago to become a general pattern in this economy. I'm sure you'd agree that it would not exactly be good for intercommunal relations were it to do so. Furthermore, recent reports in the Mail about persons resident outside the State flying in to claim social-welfare and then flying out is not desirable.

Now what does Lisbon have to do with immigration? There is the power to enter the Schengen Agreement, which the proposed new Article 29.4.7 of the Irish Constitution - part of the Lisbon referendum though not the Treaty itself - will facilitate. It would abolish passport controls on travel between Ireland and the 25 Schengen countries. Once here, an illegal immigrant can claim asylum, and some asylum-seekers are entitled to social-welfare. Yes - I know we have Irish people who abuse the welfare system aswell, but when the average salary back home is a fraction of the weekly social-welfare payment in this country, the incentive is obviously greater. Then there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of which Article 19 is a particular concern because it outlaws "collective expulsions" - legalese which will inevitably result in challenges in the ECJ to Irish deportation-orders. The legal-profession in Leinster House will love that, as asylum has been a goldmine for them e.g. free legal-aid. Whether it's good for a country €21 billion in deficit is another matter. I think not. When you have travelled across Europe to get to Ireland to claim asylum, it seems risible to suggest that safety only arrived when you stepped foot on these shores, as opposed, for example, to the UK or France. :rolleyes:

Before you get stuck into what looks like a solidly anti-immigration position, we require that you read the forum charter, and specifically the section about the Dublin Regulation. Inaccurate claims about asylum are not permitted in these forums, and will earn an instant ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It is human nature to seek to better oneself economically, but the general good of society sometimes requires the desires of human beings to be tempered by government in the general interest. That includes the desire to immigrate imho. Nothing to do with racism. I just don't want what happened to the staff in Irish Ferries some years ago to become a general pattern in this economy.

That wasn't an immigration issue. The new Irish Ferries workers didn't even get to immigrate. It was a serious failure in employment protection law. Yes, I know something of the legal issues involved, and I don't feel particularly interested in debating the details: Irish Ferries exploited a big loophole in the law.

I'm sure you'd agree that it would not exactly be good for intercommunal relations were it to do so.

I have never heard anybody express criticism of the new Irish Ferries workers; I have heard many criticisms of Irish Ferries for being exploitative. Don't try blaming the victims.

Furthermore, recent reports in the Mail about persons resident outside the State flying in to claim social-welfare and then flying out is not desirable.

Such reports are not desirable. If they are untrue, which many believe them to be, then they are particularly undesirable.

Now what does Lisbon have to do with immigration? There is the power to enter the Schengen Agreement, which the proposed new Article 29.4.7 of the Irish Constitution - part of the Lisbon referendum though not the Treaty itself - will facilitate.

We have that option already, as I understand things. And we already operate a common travel area, which facilitates foreigners to come here without restriction.

It would abolish passport controls on travel between Ireland and the 25 Schengen countries. Once here, an illegal immigrant can claim asylum, and some asylum-seekers are entitled to social-welfare.

Are you suggesting that asylum-seekers (a) constitute the bulk of our immigrants (b) should not be permitted to seek asylum?

Yes - I know we have Irish people who abuse the welfare system aswell, but when the average salary back home is a fraction of the weekly social-welfare payment in this country, the incentive is obviously greater.

So?

Then there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of which Article 19 is a particular concern because it outlaws "collective expulsions" - legalese which will inevitably result in challenges in the ECJ to Irish deportation-orders.

We don't do collective expulsions here.

The legal-profession in Leinster House will love that, as asylum has been a goldmine for them e.g. free legal-aid. Whether it's good for a country €21 billion in deficit is another matter. I think not. When you have travelled across Europe to get to Ireland to claim asylum, it seems risible to suggest that safety only arrived when you stepped foot on these shores, as opposed, for example, to the UK or France. :rolleyes:

There are dishonest asylum-seekers, no doubt, economic migrants who get here via other countries. The simple fact is that, as things already are, we cannot refuse them unless we can prove that they they were "landed" in another EU state.

You are tainting this debate with posts like this.

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Before you get stuck into what looks like a solidly anti-immigration position, we require that you read the forum charter, and specifically the section about the Dublin Regulation. Inaccurate claims about asylum are not permitted in these forums, and will earn an instant ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

It's not an anti-immigration position. It's a position that seeks a middle way between a completely open door and a completely closed one. I am not opposed to immigration provided it's regulated. And I didn't mention the Dublin Convention/Regulation. Let's not get all PC. :rolleyes:

P.Breatnach wrote:

We have that option already, as I understand things. And we already operate a common travel area, which facilitates foreigners to come here without restriction.

The CTA is only with the UK. And no, I did not suggest most of our immigration is made up of asylum-seekers. I want legal immigration that respects our sovereignty over our borders. I don't want illegal immigration that doesn't. As for your question on who should be entitled to claim asylum, I believe that those for whom Ireland was the first safe country should be allowed do so.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I'm not sure anyone wants illegal immigration, but it strikes me from the tone of your posts that while you may be, literally, in favour of legal immigration (again, who isn't?) you would seek to restrict what actually constitutes legal immigration if given the chance. Is this a correct interpretation of your position?

worldrepublic

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That wasn't an immigration issue. The new Irish Ferries workers didn't even get to immigrate. It was a serious failure in employment protection law. Yes, I know something of the legal issues involved, and I don't feel particularly interested in debating the details: Irish Ferries exploited a big loophole in the law.



I have never heard anybody express criticism of the new Irish Ferries workers; I have heard many criticisms of Irish Ferries for being exploitative. Don't try blaming the victims.



Such reports are not desirable. If they are untrue, which many believe them to be, then they are particularly undesirable.



We have that option already, as I understand things. And we already operate a common travel area, which facilitates foreigners to come here without restriction.



Are you suggesting that asylum-seekers (a) constitute the bulk of our immigrants (b) should not be permitted to seek asylum?



So?



We don't do collective expulsions here.



There are dishonest asylum-seekers, no doubt, economic migrants who get here via other countries. The simple fact is that, as things already are, we cannot refuse them unless we can prove that they they were "landed" in another EU state.

You are tainting this debate with posts like this.

What do you mean by tainted? And what do you mean by "like this." I am only trying to be fair to the poster you are taking to task. I think your response goes overboard and as such it is misleading.

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone wants illegal immigration, but it strikes me from the tone of your posts that while you may be, literally, in favour of legal immigration (again, who isn't?) you would seek to restrict what actually constitutes legal immigration if given the chance. Is this a correct interpretation of your position?

I don't think so.

P. Breathnach

worldrepublic wrote: »

What do you mean by tainted? And what do you mean by "like this." I am only trying to be fair to the poster you are taking to task. I think your response goes overboard and as such it is misleading.

We have moderators here, and a facility for reporting posts.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I'd also just like to point out, that very few people, if any at all, advocate either a fully 'open' or fully 'closed' door on immigration.

By painting the spectrum with these ends you are placing your position in the 'middle' in order to legitimise it, however just about everybody's position, when placed on the same spectrum, are also in the 'middle'. Therefore the spectrum, and your claim that your position is a 'middle way' is rendered completely meaningless, while giving the appearance of being somehow moderate, which it may or may not be.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I don't think so.

So you are perfectly happy with the current level of legal immigration?

worldrepublic

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We have moderators here, and a facility for reporting posts.

The point is not about reporting as you say, but about the debate, a debate in which several posters and their points are invested.

worldrepublic

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'd also just like to point out, that very few people, if any at all, advocate either a fully 'open' or fully 'closed' door on immigration.

By painting the spectrum with these ends you are placing your position in the 'middle' in order to legitimise it, however just about everybody's position, when placed on the same spectrum, are also in the 'middle'. Therefore the spectrum, and your claim that your position is a 'middle way' is rendered completely meaningless, while giving the appearance of being somehow moderate, which it may or may not be.

Why are you pointing to extreme positions as pertaining somehow to the debate presented? Numerous aspects of the issue have been considered and we have a balanced argument. Do you really mean to say that the "middle-way position" is "completely meaningless", while going on to acknowledge that it may be moderate. Your point is circular and your argument is therefore meaningless.

PopeBuckfastXVI

worldrepublic wrote: »

Why are you pointing to extreme positions as pertaining somehow to the debate presented? Numerous aspects of the issue have been considered and we have a balanced argument. Do you really mean to say that the "middle-way position" is "completely meaningless", while going on to acknowledge that it may be moderate. Your point is circular and your argument is therefore meaningless.

You haven't understood my post.

If you paint a spectrum, as FT did, where at one end you have a completely 'open door' policy to immigration, and at the other end you have a completely 'closed door' policy, then every position that sits between those two could be described as the 'middle way'. FT's spectrum renders the description of his position meaningless, as I could equally describe my position as a 'middle way' even if it entirely disagrees with FT's.

It's a clever trick, designed to paint the advocates position as reasonable, even if it isn't.

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So you are perfectly happy with the current level of legal immigration?

I believe we should have waited for the rest of the EU to open their labour markets before we did, but that's in the past now. I accept the legal position which is that legal immigrants are entitled to stay here. As to the future, I oppose further Enlargement to Eastern Europe, in part on grounds of the recession, which requires that charity begin at home. I think after 10 years of unparalleled Irish generosity in the field of immigration, we are entitled to think of ourselves for once and restrict non-EEA immigration, given we are not legally allowed to restrict that from the EEA.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Given we are not legally allowed to restrict that from the EEA.

So would you vote 'No' in a referendum that proposed to restrict immigration from the EEA, if given the opportunity?

I'm trying to gauge what you want, which I think is more important than what you 'accept'.

worldrepublic

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So would you vote 'No' in a referendum that proposed to restrict immigration from the EEA, if given the opportunity?

I'm trying to gauge what you want, which I think is more important than what you 'accept'.

You are asking him to deal with all kinds of hypotheticals. If, what if, would, etc. That is called "counterfactual" thinking and therefore, in the defined sense, it dilutes the debate.

PopeBuckfastXVI

worldrepublic wrote: »

You are asking him to deal with all kinds of hypotheticals. If, what if, would, etc. That is called "counterfactual" thinking and therefore, in the defined sense, it dilutes the debate.

It's a simple 'yes' or 'no' question, not 'all kinds of hypotheticals'.

It establishes his position, and I think given his claim to not be anti-immigration is a reasonable question. He's free not to answer it, of course.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

... I think after 10 years of unparalleled Irish generosity in the field of immigration ...

It wasn't generosity. We wanted workers.

P. Breathnach

worldrepublic wrote: »

You are asking him to deal with all kinds of hypotheticals. If, what if, would, etc. That is called "counterfactual" thinking and therefore, in the defined sense, it dilutes the debate.

That's the way it is when we are discussing a future scenario and what we might do now that would affect that future.

I suggest that you wait until being invited before you join the team of moderators.

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It wasn't generosity. We wanted workers.

Who is we? It seems to me that they were brought in in order to pump up the property-market. The govt finances are already back to 2004 levels. It's quite likely that by the time the recession is over, the economy will be back to 2004 levels aswell, meaning that all the growth since they started coming will have been reversed, calling into question the whole point of it from an economic perspective. And it was generosity, when you take account of the social-welfare system, which is equivalent to middle-class Polish salaries.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote:

So would you vote 'No' in a referendum that proposed to restrict immigration from the EEA, if given the opportunity?

I'm trying to gauge what you want, which I think is more important than what you 'accept'.

I want an immigration policy that reconciles the economic needs of the country with the absorption capacity of the State with respect to demographic changes. That has to include an analysis of the capacity of our public-services to cope with population-pressures. In that context, my answer to that question would change according to the circumstances of the time.