78% want permit system for EU migrants

dathi1

I think its a typical Irish electorate close the stable door after the horse has bolted. 3 years delayed reaction and then.....oh yeah....we need another 50,000 a year??? that's another 250,000 in 5 years on top of 160,000 we all ready have. SIPTU and IBEC are in heaven.

bonkey

Sounds to me more like someone is taking the (sensible) middle-ground and agreeing that there needs to be some control over the situation, whilst not appeasing those who would close the door entirely.

And its not another 250,000. Its a maximum of another 250,000. There's a difference.

jc

lostexpectation

not foreign labour driving down labour conditions, these polls should have double qualifier questions so it prooves if there people even know what they're answering.

ateam

I just find Labour's attitude amazing...they have been the advocates of immigration through Mary Robinson etc...and now they want restrictions on the number of people coming into the country...amazing.

dathi1

Sounds to me more like someone is taking the (sensible) middle-ground and agreeing that there needs to be some control over the situation, whilst not appeasing those who would close the door entirely.

absolutely...I'm sure that's what the majority wanted originally too (pre Nice). I remember the posts on this forum calling eastern block labour control posters as scaremongers by using the word "flood" etc etc...the market would find an equilibrium etc....Well there's your flood...sorry torrent and equilibrium?? massive increasing black market according to the Sunday business post.

Zombrex

dathi1 wrote:

Well there's your flood

Where is the flood?

We need more labour than we have at the moment, despite this "flood"

And as bonkey said 50,000 in the next year does not equal 250,000 in the next 5 years, or 500,000 in the next 10 years or 5,000,000 in the next 100 years.

It means 50,000 in the next year

What was that about "scaremongering"

Meh

dathi1 wrote:

absolutely...I'm sure that's what the majority wanted originally too (pre Nice). I remember the posts on this forum calling eastern block labour control posters as scaremongers by using the word "flood" etc etc...the market would find an equilibrium etc....Well there's your flood...sorry torrent and equilibrium?? massive increasing black market according to the Sunday business post.

If there's such a "flood" of cheap labour pushing Irish workers out of the jobs market, then how come unemployment is at record lows? Explain that please.

w66w66

permits aren't nesscary as numbers will drop when other Eu countries end their two year ban on eastern european migration.

simu

Permits = needless bureaucracy imo.

bonkey

dathi1 wrote:

absolutely...I'm sure that's what the majority wanted originally too (pre Nice).

I guess it depends how you look at it. Did the majority favour having some controls - almost undoubtedly. Did the majority favour having controls that would supply less than our market demand could soak up - almost undoubtedly not.

The 50,000 figure may seem high, but I would imagine that its an upper limit proposed to prevent "overheating" of any and all relevant economic factors.

I remember the posts on this forum calling eastern block labour control posters as scaremongers by using the word "flood" etc etc...

I'd still accuse them of employing a scaremongering line of argument for having used the term then, and for continuing to use it now.

the market would find an equilibrium etc

Uh-huh. And it will. So far, however, supply of immigrant workers has failed to meet demand, and so we are still seeking this point of equilibrium.

massive increasing black market according to the Sunday business post.

This is part of finding equilibrium.

I thought it was implicitly clear that equilibrium involves swinging below[/]i the ideal as well as above it, (hopefully) eventually coming to rest at an optimal (or near-optimal) solution?

Every opportunity will always have associated risks. Those risks cannot be fully proactively prevented from materialising. That doesn't mean the opportunity shouldn't be taken - it means that one should keep an eye out for risks (seen and unseen) materialising, and one should then deal with the resultant problems sensibly with an eye to the overall goal.

Would I trade Ireland's growing economy, increasing wealth, relative competitiveness, etc. for less of a black market? Hell no. I'd take the money, and tackle the black-market issue with some of the proceeds, and still come out on top. I'd even wager that I'd never have been better off (unless I refused to deal with the black market issue) had I not taken the growth+blackmarket path and taken the stagnation path instead.

We have (almost beyond rational argument) a net benefit from our immigration policy to date. What people seem to lose sight of is that change always takes work to get right. There are two important consequences of this:

1) Just because one can point to resulting problems does not mean we're worse off and certainly does not mean that we should have never gone down this road.
2) Just because one can point to benefits accrued does not mean we're unquestionably better off, and certainly does not mean that we could not do a better job, nor that what has worked thus-far remains our recipe for success.

I'm unconvinced that controls of the type proposed are needed, but I can understand the rationale under which they could be sought. However, I would in no way see it as a vindication of the Chicken Little's who've been telling us that the sky has been falling for years now.

jc

<edit>
I should also have pointed out that a black market requires consumers as well as suppliers willing to take advantage of it, a system lax enough in which to thrive and grow, and so forth. In short, the Irish consumers and Irish employers who are taking advantage of these things are as much of the problem as the immigrants...if not moreso. You can get rid of the immigrants (notionally, at least), but the Irish willing to abuse a system for personal gain will remain and will find other avenues to gfain their illicit advantages. If we put our efforts instead into limiting the damage such employers/consumers could do we'd probably be far better off, as it would not only have the same effect as correcting the immigration-relevant issue, but would deal with other forces driving black/grey marketeering also.
</edit>

ateam

I just have an economic question...Yes we need foreign workers, but don't they have children. Thus they need to be educated, given medical cards and receive all the other social welfare benefits which is a drain on the economy. Therefore, is importing ecomomic migrants really beneficial given the above?

Zombrex

ateam wrote:

I just have an economic question...Yes we need foreign workers, but don't they have children. Thus they need to be educated, given medical cards and receive all the other social welfare benefits which is a drain on the economy. Therefore, is importing ecomomic migrants really beneficial given the above?

The same thing could be asked why do I have to pay taxes to support your fecking kids

Foreign works pay tax just like everyone else (well the ones that work for above board employeers), so why shouldn't they be allowed send their kids to schools and use the hospitals?

From a purely economic sense the more workers the more tax the government has. Of course it still doesn't stop the government from completely fecking up how the tax is used.

w66w66

ateam wrote:

I just have an economic question...Yes we need foreign workers, but don't they have children. Thus they need to be educated, given medical cards and receive all the other social welfare benefits which is a drain on the economy. Therefore, is importing ecomomic migrants really beneficial given the above?

true, although with Eastern European migrants what you will probably see is a large portion of migrants returning home before they start to use are health service or state pensions etc, therefore they won't take back what they put in.

ateam

w66w66 wrote:

true, although with Eastern European migrants what you will probably see is a large portion of migrants returning home before they start to use are health service or state pensions etc, therefore they won't take back what they put in.

Hmmmm...what do you base this on?

Meh

ateam wrote:

I just have an economic question...Yes we need foreign workers, but don't they have children. Thus they need to be educated, given medical cards and receive all the other social welfare benefits which is a drain on the economy. Therefore, is importing ecomomic migrants really beneficial given the above?

Actually, many of the eastern european migrants leave their kids back in their home country with grandparents or other family.

dathi1

Again..the 50,000 figure is the same fictitious figure banded put by IBEC last time around only that it was the total number of Immigrants needed (not on a yearly basis). I suppose the majority supported this too although I knew that the 50,000 figure then as now is a bull**** marker. Nobody would suggest a total stop to eastern European accession state work immigration. Only thing is there are negative aspects which although a vibrant black economy is one which should be welcomed as a by product of our economic success it doesn't mean that we still should have EXCLUSIVE access. Especially at this stage. Regardless expect the Irish Lag factor to kick in within months when the bull**** factor of some politicians like Rabbite who along with his SIPTU counterparts play politics with the issue
Now off yez go....

More more more....hang on...will that effect public sector jobs too?? oh no more no more.

I thought it was implicitly clear that equilibrium involves swinging below[/]i the ideal as well as above it, (hopefully) eventually coming to rest at an optimal (or near-optimal) solution?

just as a matter of interest what country ( Ireland size) has used uncontrolled immigration like this successfully in the last 20 years? what does coming to a rest mean? 50% over saturation? Lithuania wages are 40 euro a week. You could undercut by 14 times the average Irish salary on the black market. sounds like 100% over-saturation to me.

1) Just because one can point to resulting problems does not mean we're worse off and certainly does not mean that we should have never gone down this road.

I agree...I've never said that we should not have E Block workers here. Just the idea of a state controlling its borders to benifit Irish and immigrant workers alike. Tap on Tap off. (Singapore etc)

w66w66

ateam wrote:

Hmmmm...what do you base this on?

Judging by the strong economic performance of most of these countries I would guess that in 10 years to 15 years or so, many eastern European countries will have well developed countries with high standards living and good employment opportunities. And so, like the Irish migrants who left Ireland in the 70's and 80's a large portion will eagerly return home.

bonkey

dathi1 wrote:

just as a matter of interest what country ( Ireland size) has used uncontrolled immigration like this successfully in the last 20 years?

I would have said.....Ireland!!! Or are you suggesting that it has not been successful to date?

I could just as equally ask what country has successfully used 90's-style globalisation successfully before the 90s. It might sound like a stupid question, but there's a reason for it - the world economic structure has changed so drastically in the past 20 years that its pointless trying to base one's economy today purely on policies which were successful in the 70s or 60s....or even in the 80s.

what does coming to a rest mean? 50% over saturation?

Are you going to explain how 50% above saturation is economically maintainable? If not, then what possible grounds do you have to believe it will be a resting position? Unmaintainable situations (high or low) are inherently unstable.

I'm not convinced the situation will ever come to a rest, but I believe it can stabilise and oscillate far less widely around a point. This touches on a point Stiglitz has often made, that the aim of modern economics is to break the cycle of boom/bust, instead favouring far more gentle climbs, and far shorter and less vicious resultant downturns. The system will never be "flat", but we can reduce the inherent instability.

Lithuania wages are 40 euro a week.

What were Irish wages when we joined the EU (EEC)? Why didn't the EU average wage drop to meet the lowest common denominator as the nations became more and more integrated? Why have we instead seen the poorer nations (such as we were at the time) climb to meet the rich far more than the reverse?

Pointing out that the immigrants come from poor nations is easy. Trying to explain why, despite this always having been the case, we haven't unilaterally engaged in a race to the bottom already, but instead see far more wealth being generated in the poor nations....thats the trick. And controlled immigration doesn't explain it. The developed EU nations have never been on a level with each other, and yet we don't see Ireland being flooded with the unemployed Germans and French, nor the salaries across these richer nations rushing downwards to meet whoever was lowest to begin with.....

You could undercut by 14 times the average Irish salary on the black market.

I remember the good ol' days when plenty of Irish worked building-site nixers whilst drawing the dole. What was that over-saturation of?

sounds like 100% over-saturation to me.

Sounds like black-marketeering to me, which is a seperate problem exacerbated by immigration. Why treat the symptom (immigration) when you could treat the cause? Find some employer engaged in this practice, shut his business, take his entire wealth from him, and slap him in jail for 5 years. Repeat a few times, and see how willing employers are to hire off the books.

dathi1

I would have said.....Ireland!!! Or are you suggesting that it has not been successful to date?

So now..you conceed Ireland is the only country which has embarked on this unproven model. At one stage our economy was growing at 11% before EU accession...so no linkage there. Non EU uncontrolled immigration which just so happen to correspond with our rise in wealth was mostly welfare dependent (much to harney and mcdowels dismay) as the right to work was void. Granted E Block immigration has helped to some degree but its by no means the sole factor now. Somehow we now have to thank uncontrolled E block immigration for our economic success?

the world economic structure has changed so drastically in the past 20 years that its pointless trying to base one's economy today purely on policies which were successful in the 70s or 60s....or even in the 80s.

I agree but I dont know where I put forward such backward ideas?

This touches on a point Stiglitz has often made, that the aim of modern economics is to break the cycle of boom/bust, instead favouring far more gentle climbs, and far shorter and less vicious resultant downturns. The system will never be "flat", but we can reduce the inherent instability.

but this statement flies in the face of what you just said...."cycle of boom/bust" surely an uncontrolled influx of E Block workers bring uncontrolled economic factors from destabilising black market racketeering to a race to the bottom (sorry ) in conditions and employment for all. I think its the nearest to boom and bust you could get. Unless its controlled.

What were Irish wages when we joined the EU (EEC)? Why didn't the EU average wage drop to meet the lowest common denominator as the nations became more and more integrated? Why have we instead seen the poorer nations (such as we were at the time) climb to meet the rich far more than the reverse?

No comparison..Germany / UK > Ireland ???? 120 million between them?? and then...3.5 million Irish of which I'm guessing 20...50,000 went there?
So lets take it one more step...How many more E Block workers qualify for free entry no holes barred to this state after the initial 150-180,00 we have now? 250,000 or 500,000? where's the equilibrium there? I guess there's a pre early election switch the tap off phase coming soon.

I remember the good ol' days when plenty of Irish worked building-site nixers whilst drawing the dole. What was that over-saturation of?

i suppose desperate times....In their own country.

bonkey

dathi1 wrote:

So now..you conceed Ireland is the only country which has embarked on this unproven model.

I conceded no such thing. I conceded merely that the model was unproven. I also pointed out - although you seem to have overlooked it from how I phrased things - that no currently successful strategy is proven. If tried and tested models can no longer be the basis for a total economy, there remains one option - the untested. We're doing that, just like others. Of the developed nations, we have consistently been up at the top since picking ourselves up.

As Europe went through its most recent downturn, what did we see? Germany,France etc. who are far more tightly-bound to old and established models suffered far more than Ireland, who - with its new, untested model - time and time again came in the top 3 EU nations in terms of growth.

I'm not denying we've got problems to overcome, but erecting economic barriers is not the way to go about that, and thats effectively what we're talking about. Trying to be more like the countries whos' economies we've been beating year on year would seem a counter-productive move to me.

Employers still can't fill positions, and yet you talk about over-saturation. Thats not saturation.

You didn't deny that black-marketeering existing in desperate times in Ireland, so clearly it is not an offshoot of immigrant markets - it is simply an undesireable market force that (for one reason or another) we turn a blind eye to. Hardly surprising that as our market grows, so does our black-market.

Also hardly surprising that as we rush for greater and greater wealth without taking the time to ensure our existing legislation is properly enforced, said legislation gets more and more exploited.

As I have done on so many other issues in the past, however, I would suggest here that passing new legislation seems a foolhardy way of addressing an issue arising from a lack of enforcement.

Is there a (strong) case that existing legislation is simply inadequate for dealing with the problem, rather than it being a case of a lack of resources or the will to use same?

i suppose desperate times....In their own country.

I think you've missed the point I was making.

I'm suggesting that black-marketeering is a long-term endemic problem that we're willing to accept except when its not just the Irish getting the benefit from it....a point you even appear to be agreeing with, given the "own country" comment.

I'm suggesting the existence of this black-market from times of economic depression and emigration through to times of economic largesse and immigration suggests that the problem is not the foreigners coming here to (illegally) take "our" jobs.

The problem is that our system fails to adequately deal with the black-market, and this is what we should be addressing. Remove/contain the market, and you remove/contain the illegal workforce regardless of nationality.

The problem there is the number of good ol' Oirish who'd get effected too...so "clearly" thats not desireable.

jc

ronbyrne2005

if people feel like this now i dread to see how they feel when the economy isnt so buoyant.
although employment isnt being affected the fact that many immigrants will work for less is or will drive down wages for certain jobs,the governor of the bank of england has attributed the influx of immigrants for wage moderation there.
there are costs to society from having a high number of immigrants including drains on public services etc(which they are entitled to but many are on minimum wage and pay little tax and many operate in blackmarket and pay no tax ) and further increases in house prices which is further pricing young irish people out of market, just because the economy benefits doesnt mean that the average irish person benefits that much,its shareholders/business/landlords owners who are benefiting while wages for workers will be or are already under pressure from cheaper labour.
we are a tiny country of 4million people only 2million of which are workers.ten per cent of workers are already foreign workers if this continues to rise and wages stagnate in real terms while housing etc continues to increase in cost irish workers will be rightly p1ssed off.consideration must be made for the small size of our country when considering mass immigration.
in the longer run many of the american companies in ireland will locate in eastern europe asia etc and shut operations here,im very pessimistic about the future of the irish economy and eu and american economies as a whole,all manufacturing will be outsourced to cheaper locations and unless a country is excellent in research/innovation/technology/services which i dont think ireland is, they will struggle to create economic growth,even jobs which require degrees such as computer or finance related jobs can be outsourced to highly educated graduates in china india etc and this will continue to happen

gurramok

Agree with you there. Attitudes among people i know have changed alot with regards the unrestricted immigrant population compared to 2-3yrs ago where they would have been welcomed.
Alot of it is to do with wage moderation where those on lower incomes(Irish) feel their incomes are not rising due to immigrants willingless working for less in same category of job.
Another area is housing, most of the immigrants (eastern european) are single workers with no family with them hence their lack of need for buying homes and instead renting many to a house, not their fault mind you regarding house prices. This makes it rent affordable for them, though many Irish do it but its felt that immigrants do it 'more'
However first time buyers i know are getting fed up with rising housing prices which they attribute to immigrants driving up the prices and helping Irish landlords to get even richer.
God help this country when the downturn does come, i feel we will be left with racial strife with a huge underclass blaming immigration as a copout for their problems.

shoegirl

ateam wrote:

I just have an economic question...Yes we need foreign workers, but don't they have children. Thus they need to be educated, given medical cards and receive all the other social welfare benefits which is a drain on the economy. Therefore, is importing ecomomic migrants really beneficial given the above?

Hear hear. Migrant workers bring in far more than they take out. They don't, contrary to popular opinion, lower wages however they may prevent demand-led wage inflation. They willingly pay the extortionate rents that the lucky 25% who own more than one house have the cheek to charge for their unmaintained hovels. They therefore subsidise your childrens education, your health, your pals on social welfare who don't/can't/won't work, and put money directly back into your pocket by then buying your goods and renting your rotten properties (which has probably helped the Irish housing market avoid a collapse in prices).

Also the migration system is one of the toughest and most unfair in Europe. Non-EU migrant workers DON'T get work permits. Employers get work permits to employ non-EU workers. The permit is given to the employer, not the worker. Its even the employer who actually applies. In fact these days I'm seeing a lot of cases of advertisements asking only for applications from people already entitled to work here (i.e. EU folks only please). I also know of at least 2 workers with US and Canadian passports respectively who had to go home as their employer was unable to get their work permits renewed. The situation for non-EU workers is highly restrictive and workers simply cannot arrive here without having a pre-arranged job. (An australian friend of mine was deported 5 years ago for trying that).

Ironically all of the people I know who've suffered under this regime are passport holders from countries who have very good arrangements made for Irish people to go and work in their countries - shame we don't reciprocate.

Then I hear all the "compassion" for the irish "illegals" in the US - a country which has been more than generous to Ireland in the past in granting visa lotteries, etc.

Perhaps we should put our money where our mouths are and prepare to repatriate the 3 million Irish people living outside Ireland (including 50,000 in the US illegally) before we start to condemn those who come here for precisely the same reasons why we went there. Then we can talk about an even more restrictive regime than the already restrictive one in place.

Oh and while we're at it, lets also give back the billions of euros that the French, Germans, British etc have showed us with since Ireland joined the EU. Then and only then we can send em back home with a clear conscience. I truly hope then you'll be happy when you have to pay 4 euro for a loaf of bread when your local SuperValu has to pay 15 euros an hour for a checkout operator because of the labour shortage. Be careful for what you wish for, because you might just get it.

Postscript....Sorry to rant, but coming from a generation where emigration to the EU/US/Australia was seen as a natural right, and working with lots of great continentals and other foreign folks, this kind of hypocrisy really gets my goat.

Wibbs

Well put shoegirl. I too remember the days of emigration from this country. People have short memories indeed.

fly_agaric

bonkey wrote:

What were Irish wages when we joined the EU (EEC)? Why didn't the EU average wage drop to meet the lowest common denominator as the nations became more and more integrated? Why have we instead seen the poorer nations (such as we were at the time) climb to meet the rich far more than the reverse?

I think the other times that poorer countries joined the EU their populations were relatively smaller (would Spain, Ireland, Greece, and Portugal spaced out over a decade or so add up to anything like Poland + all the other accession states joining at once - the UK was not a poor country when it joined). Also, they joined during Europe's (esp. Germany's) post-war economic expansion. Economic growth in Europe is not at anything like the levels it was at back then.

I know we're going through a kind of belated economic miracle at the moment but we can't hope to do much to help raise the living standards of a population which is about 20 times larger than our own.

w66w66 wrote:

permits aren't nesscary as numbers will drop when other Eu countries end their two year ban on eastern european migration.

If you think the French and Germans are going to open their borders to the accession states in the same way that we have you are dreaming or smoking something good. Their politicians will find some way to defer the evil day and ignore the hell that Poland etc will raise over it. Either that or be booted out faster than you can say "general election".

ambro25

I hope 'advocates' of work permits for bona fide EU citizens realise that other EU countries might just reciprocate with respect to Irish migrants, i.e. "no more jetting off to London or Paris for that dream or summer job, get your GB or FR permit first".

When are (some - a lot by the sound of it) people over here going to cop on that it swings both ways and that you can't have your cake and eat it?

FFS! That kind of Alf-Garnett drivel really f*cking gets me going... :mad:

Calina

ambro25 wrote:

I hope 'advocates' of work permits for bona fide EU citizens realise that other EU countries might just reciprocate with respect to Irish migrants, i.e. "no more jetting off to London or Paris for that dream or summer job, get your GB or FR permit first".

When are (some - a lot by the sound of it) people over here going to cop on that it swings both ways and that you can't have your cake and eat it?

FFS! That kind of Alf-Garnett drivel really f*cking gets me going... :mad:

point of information: when I went to France first, getting your residence permit - which I think is is still necessary - you had to prove you had a job before you got one and getting a job without one wasn't always the easiest. Likewise Germany.

dathi1

Sorry to rant, but coming from a generation where emigration to the EU/US/Australia was seen as a natural right, and working with lots of great continentals and other foreign folks, this kind of hypocrisy really gets my goat.

Just to let you know that as we have seen recently with irish Immigrants statseside the United States does not have an open door policy to Irish immigrants even though we built the place

Migrant workers bring in far more than they take out. They don't, contrary to popular opinion, lower wages however they may prevent demand-led wage inflation. They willingly pay the extortionate rents that the lucky 25% who own more than one house have the cheek to charge for their unmaintained hovels. They therefore subsidise your childrens education, your health, your pals on social welfare who don't/can't/won't work, and put money directly back into your pocket by then buying your goods and renting your rotten properties (which has probably helped the Irish housing market avoid a collapse in prices).

this is all irrelevant to the thread in general....the majority of Irish people see E Block immigration positively. However the majority also see that we should have the same fundamental rights as all world states to control our borders and use the work permit system. As in the USA, Canada etc.

The uncontrolled system that we have now has left us vulnerable to precarious economic situations in the future from oversupply, feudal sky high landlord rents, Crime control etc...(i.e. Lithuanian Russian Mafia etc)

What our bull**** politicians said then:

" The expected trickle of immigration to Ireland will on balance benefit the
Irish economy." [P. De Rossa, I.T. Letters,20/8/2002

" I estimate that fewer than 2,000 will choose our distant shores each
year." [P.De Rossa, I.T. Letters, 20/8/2002 ]

"Efforts have been made to foment fears that migrants from the new member
states could flock to Ireland. This is not only unpleasant but plainly
wrong." [Brian Cowen, Sunday Business Post, 7/7/2002 ]

"Ireland is already benefiting from the skills and energy of workers from
the applicant states, about 7,000 of whom received work permits last year.
There is no basis whatever for expecting a huge upsurge in these numbers."
[Brian Cowen, Sunday Business Post, 7/7/2002 ]

" The second myth is that the Nice Treaty will mean mass immigration from
the new EU member countries in Eastern Europe. This is probably the most
odious of the myths propagated by some in the "No" campaign." [Minister
Willie O'Dea, Sunday Independent,Summer 2002]

Zombrex

dathi1 wrote:

However the majority also see that we should have the same fundamental rights as all world states to control our borders and use the work permit system. As in the USA, Canada etc.

We do have a work permit system ala the USA. But you don't need one if you are inside the EU, just like you don't need a work permit to work in California if you come from New York.

dathi1 wrote:

The uncontrolled system that we have now has left us vulnerable to precarious economic situations in the future from oversupply, feudal sky high landlord rents, Crime control etc...(i.e. Lithuanian Russian Mafia etc)

Again with the oh my god some time in the future it is all going to hit the fan ... still waiting, so far no sh*t and no fan ....

ambro25

Calina wrote:

point of information: when I went to France first, getting your residence permit - which I think is is still necessary - you had to prove you had a job before you got one and getting a job without one wasn't always the easiest. Likewise Germany.

Correct if you are not a EU citizen, and reciprocally incorrect otherwise:

Tout séjour sur le territoire français de plus de 3 mois est considéré comme résidence.

Pour résider en France, vous avez besoin d'un titre de séjour, sauf si vous êtes ressortissant d'un des pays de l'EU / EEE, pour qui le titre de séjour n'est plus obligatoire.

which translates as:

Any period of time spent in France exceeding 3 months is considered as residing.

In order to reside in France, you require a residence permit, except if you are native of one of the EU/EEE Member States, for whom the residence title (NDT permit) is not compulsory anymore.

source

Pretty much like most other EU countries, as a matter of fact.

You stand corrected.

Alun

ambro25 wrote:

Correct if you are not a EU citizen, and reciprocally incorrect otherwise:

Which is contrary to what it says here ...
http://europa.eu.int/youreurope/nav/en/citizens/factsheets/fr/residencerights/workersresidencemorethanyear/en.html

I certainly know that when I left the Netherlands (4 years ago), the residence permit system was still in force.

ambro25

Alun wrote:

Which is contrary to what it says here ...
(etc.)

The issue of the thread is not residence, it is employment. My point to Calina was merely informative, not quite on-topic. So, resuming and quoting from your (quite good) source:

Regardless of your place of residence, as a European Union worker you are entitled to take up an activity as an employed person in any Member State under the same conditions as nationals . Equal treatment applies to all conditions governing employment and work (e.g. remuneration, dismissal, occupational reintegration or re-employment after being unemployed).

The principle of equal treatment in access to employment implies that you have the same priority as nationals for access to employment in any Member State. This means that national provisions limiting the number or percentage of foreigners who may be employed do not apply to you. Consequently, when in a Member State the granting of any benefit to enterprises is subject to a minimum percentage of national workers, you are regarded as a national worker.

In addition, EC law states that any clause of a collective or individual agreement or of any other collective regulation concerning eligibility for employment, employment, remuneration and other conditions of work or dismissal shall be null and void in so far as it lays down or authorises discriminatory conditions in respect of workers who are nationals of other Member States.

Whether the Member State (operatively: the Republic of Ireland) decides to place particularly burdensome administrative requirements upon 'residence' or not, for instance to indirectly discourage economic migration, one thing for certain is that such may not override the above and the relevant Treaty provisions.

I would therefore imagine that work permits for EU citiziens (for I am unaware of 'classes' of EU citizens, e.g. Poor Easterner vs Rich Westerners - at leats in Law) would contravene the said Treaty provisions, in a rather smelly way.

Calina

ambro25 wrote:

Correct if you are not a EU citizen, and reciprocally incorrect otherwise:

Pretty much like most other EU countries, as a matter of fact.

You stand corrected.

Then it has changed since I last resided in France when in fact, it was necessary for me as an EU citizen to have and carry a carte de séjour. Strangely enough, I found their system the easiest to deal with, and by contrast, had much grief with the Belgian system. The German system was not so bad.

shoegirl

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

in the longer run many of the american companies in ireland will locate in eastern europe asia etc and shut operations here,im very pessimistic about the future of the irish economy and eu and american economies as a whole,all manufacturing will be outsourced to cheaper locations and unless a country is excellent in research/innovation/technology/services which i dont think ireland is, they will struggle to create economic growth,even jobs which require degrees such as computer or finance related jobs can be outsourced to highly educated graduates in china india etc and this will continue to happen

....in which cases the migrant workers will probably follow the jobs to those countries. Inward immigration into Ireland is not likely to sustain itself.
Also many EU migrants go back home - and are replaced by other EU migrants. Many are likely to go home when things improved at home - just like Irish emmigrants have been doing for the last 10 years.
Secondly, most non-EU workers only have permits through their employers, and they will be forced to leave when these expire and their employers are no longer able to renew their permits due to workers here being unavailable.

We have one root cause for this whole situation by the way - a shortage of workers.
Why? I think there are 2 reasons:
1. Felxibility demands - mobility and work pattern requirements prevent many people from taking up many jobs.
For example, if you live more than 3 miles outside Cork city (or even live in the city and work 3 miles out), its impossible to get a bus to start work earlier than 8am. This makes it impossible to work in most factories which demand an 7am start (and most refuse to change their patterns to attract workers). So you either need a car, or need to be able to live closeby. Since its more expensive for the Irish person who owns a house or lives with family to move, they will look for work at home.
Secondly, many Irish people are more likely to want a permanent role - temp work has poor conditions and isn't seen as attractive. Irish people are still used to 39 hr or less weeks and sick pay entitlements - which many newly arrived workers may not be accustomed to.
2. Expensive accomodation and living costs preventing social welfare recipients from moving into work -
The net social welfare rates are quite low - however excessive rents in the private sector hike up the net payments to a level for households of 2 of more to a level well above the minimum wage. For many people this quite simply means that work does not pay. (Secondarily, and of serious concern, every penny of the uplift for private rents is going into the pockets of private landlords whose sole motive is to maximise profit). The medical card impact varies as some people don't suffer from much ill health, but if they do then the impact is heavy - even a person with moderately bad asthma can spend 85 a month on medication quite easily. Likewise, childcare costs are a major barrier to women with children returning to the workforce.

However the reality is, that any attempt to improve affordability of accomodation or broaden access to cheap childcare would dent the massive gravy train of cash for landlords and childcare providers - and just look at how many TDs are amateur landlords with a vested interest in keeping the business highly profitable. So inevitably it remains a vested interest for many TDs to encourage mobile workers over from abroad, who will not only take up those jobs, (and in many cases work in businesses belonging to TDs) but also afford more profits for our current generation of rack-renting landlords and high-cost, low-quality childcare. So don't blame the foreigners!

ambro25

shoegirl wrote:

Secondly, most non-EU workers only have permits through their employers, and they will be forced to leave when these expire and their employers are no longer able to renew their permits due to workers here being unavailable.

Not looking to nitpick (and I'd actually class myself as 'for' migrations rather than 'against ), but I'm not following your logic in the excerpt above: surely if there is a dearth of workers ((...) workers here being unavailable.), then one would expect their employers to be able to renew the permits in question (else how are the employers going to get things done?)...

mayhem#

Bigots....

E.

shoegirl

ambro25 wrote:

Not looking to nitpick (and I'd actually class myself as 'for' migrations rather than 'against ), but I'm not following your logic in the excerpt above: surely if there is a dearth of workers ((...) workers here being unavailable.), then one would expect their employers to be able to renew the permits in question (else how are the employers going to get things done?)...

My point was that for non-EU migrants, the Irish system is already extremely restrictive.
Why extend this to EU migrants also?

bonkey

fly_agaric wrote:

I think the other times that poorer countries joined the EU their populations were relatively smaller (would Spain, Ireland, Greece, and Portugal spaced out over a decade or so add up to anything like Poland + all the other accession states joining at once - the UK was not a poor country when it joined). Also, they joined during Europe's (esp. Germany's) post-war economic expansion. Economic growth in Europe is not at anything like the levels it was at back then.

Agreed. However, I will point out that both before and since the accession states have joined, our economy has outstripped the larger, less-likely-to-be-effected populations such as Germany and France...all of whom implemented these "sensible" protectionary limits.

It seems that the evidence of the reality is difference to the claim.

I know we're going through a kind of belated economic miracle at the moment but we can't hope to do much to help raise the living standards of a population which is about 20 times larger than our own.

Nor do we have to. The initial barriers erected by EU nations was for a short duration (2 years, if memory serves). Once that runs out, the game changes, and we're no longer alone. Not only that, but if the other EU nations decide to erect subsequent barriers, then we will have (as we did before) the opportunity to decide to join them or not.

Last time round, the Irish government outplayed the rest of the field. They looked at the duration, looked at the risk, went for it, and came out on top.

I'm not saying they should remain tied to this strategy from here on out, but I think its unsupportable to say they did the wrong thing then when they've beaten every other player in terms of results, nor is it fair to projcet the current situation into the future when one way or another the game changes once the current barriers erected in other nations expire.

If you think the French and Germans are going to open their borders to the accession states in the same way that we have you are dreaming or smoking something good.

I'm undecided, but I'm leaning towards believing that they will either look to set limits that are based on the total foreign percentage in the country (which will then be dependant on the percentage already there), or they will indeed open up their borders. After all, if your economy is down the tubes, its highly unlikely that someone is gonna choose to go for a better life there then somewhere else nearby with better conditions.

Whats the worst that can happen? Their economies continue to refuse to improve...in which case the Eu is effectively doomed anyway. On the other hand, dropping protectionist barriers raised against foreign workers could be just the impetus needed to force their workforces to accept that working a short week with a high wage is simply not economically viable, no matter how fervently one believes in a socialist State.

Their politicians will find some way to defer the evil day and ignore the hell that Poland etc will raise over it. Either that or be booted out faster than you can say "general election".

Fine...but if and when they do that, teh state of play will change. It is at that point, once we have the knowledge of what is happening, that we can make a meaningful decision as to how to proceed.

If the EU goes on to make the two-tier mode effectively permanent, then I would agree that we can choose which tier to throw our lot in, whilst cautioning that neither is particularly attractive in the long term.

If they drop their barriers instead, as they're supposed to, then we would be foolhardy in the extreme to suggest that the best path would be to swap positions with them, and erect our barriers.

If a new hybrid / compromise path is chosen, we cannot meaningfully base our strategy on anythnig less than the knowledge of what hybrid is being considered.

To sum up, I can understand why someone would put an election platform promise of wanting to implement very high immigration controls, because it plays to the most crowds whilst still realistically leaving the most room to actually manouever in come decision time.

However, the whole Chicken Little approach just doesn't make sense to me. Peolpe caution us about the imminent failure of a system with precious little to back up these claims other than some fear that it might all go wrong in a future where the status quo regarding imigration controls across Europe remains indefinitely the same. Thats not our future, so I hardly see how it backs up the argument.

jc

ronbyrne2005

theres nothing wrong with immigration per se.the problem is ireland is too small to have a completely open labour market.wages ARE under pressure from new arrivals to ireland and this will escalate as has been seen everywhere where new immigrants have arrived such as in usa, but we as a small nation cant sustain this,it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer as wages for low skill jobs stay at low levels rather than increase to attract labour in a tight labour market and wages for skilled workers are prevented from rising and stagnate or decline in real terms.
look at the immigrnat workers in germany(geisterbiester)holland etc from turkey(around 5 million of them) they stayed in germany after moving there for work,they just brought their families and never went home when economy slowed down.
anyone who thinks "just let everyone in from everywhere" is a shortsighted fool. the fact that many irish emmigrated is irrelevant,they moved to massive countries who could easily deal with hundreds of thousands of immigrants,we cant! our infrastructure/housing/public services etc can barely support us let alone another couple of hundred thousand immigrants.
the cheap immigrant workers may be driving economic growth but who's benefitting? only land lords and business owners.they usually arent on great wages so they dont pay much tax,they drive up accomadtion and hence house prices.

ronbyrne2005

shoegirl wrote:

My point was that for non-EU migrants, the Irish system is already extremely restrictive.
Why extend this to EU migrants also?

people want to extend it because we are a small economy and allowing masses of labour prepared to undercut your and every other job isnt a gret idea for the average worker,its great for the vested interests like business owners and landlords. most of these immigrants start working in low skill/low pay jobs but as they get used to the culture and get the language etc they will move to more high skill jobs (they are usually skilled but have to start in low pay employment)and undercut people there. im not against them if the wages of irish employees continue to grow at the rate of inflation plus productivity gains and if they dont cause an increase in housing costs or are a drain on our public services.

ronbyrne2005

mayhem# wrote:

Bigots....

E.

very constructive argument there

So what if 78% want a permit system? That has no bearing on if Ireland actually needs a permit system or not.

Most people don't have much of a clue on immigration.

We should listen to what the experts on the issue have to say, rather than polling the Sun-educated population to find out their "informed" answer is, to what is probably a ridiculously biased question anyway.

Delboy05

Deleted User wrote:

So what if 78% want a permit system? That has no bearing on if Ireland actually needs a permit system or not.

Most people don't have much of a clue on immigration.

We should listen to what the experts on the issue have to say, rather than polling the Sun-educated population to find out their "informed" answer is, to what is probably a ridiculously biased question anyway.

Polls are skewed to take in as broad a spectrum of the various groupings within a population as possible, thats why they're usually accurate to within a few points.....maybe u should stop reading The Mirror!!!!

If the poll went the other way, i doubt the pro-immigration lobby would be saying we need to listen to the experts and not the people. And who are the 'experts'.....this country is'nt very good when it comes to 'experts'....check out the latest LUAS line screw ups-we had our top rail 'experts' working on that project ......

fly_agaric

bonkey wrote:

Agreed. However, I will point out that both before and since the accession states have joined, our economy has outstripped the larger, less-likely-to-be-effected populations such as Germany and France...all of whom implemented these "sensible" protectionary limits.

It seems that the evidence of the reality is difference to the claim.

We were already in the middle of a boom (unlike most of the rest of the EU), and the immigrants supplied more labour to keep it going.
I'd like to make clear I was entering this thread with the thought that the barriers that most of the rest of the rest of the EU put up to free movement of these workers made sense for them (IMO), and we can't count on them being removed, not to argue the case that we should have had similar barriers at that time.

bonkey wrote:

I'm undecided, but I'm leaning towards believing that they will either look to set limits that are based on the total foreign percentage in the country (which will then be dependant on the percentage already there), or they will indeed open up their borders.

I disagree. The German and French governments don't want more people voting for the political extremes - which are continuing to increase their political support in both countries by exploiting both xenophobia and fears about "globalisation" (buzzword!:)). I really can't see it being easy for governments to weaken barriers to immigration in either country even though I'd say that is what they would prefer to do.

bonkey wrote:

After all, if your economy is down the tubes, its highly unlikely that someone is gonna choose to go for a better life there then somewhere else nearby with better conditions.

This statement would imply that an easing of the restrictions across the EU will not relieve the pressure on Sweden, the UK, and us? Anyway, I don't agree. Their economies may not be growing very much but they are far from being "down the tubes".

Wages and working conditions in Germany for example would be so much better than home in any case that I'm sure plenty of well educated E. Europeans will be willing to take a punt on snagging a job given the chance. Anyway, it looks like our 2-year bar on social welfare for immigrants won't stand up so what's to stop them availing of Germany's welfare state in the meantime if they can't get a job.

bonkey wrote:

On the other hand, dropping protectionist barriers raised against foreign workers could be just the impetus needed to force their workforces to accept that working a short week with a high wage is simply not economically viable, no matter how fervently one believes in a socialist State.

Bit of a shock-therapy for the German and French workforce! Introduce alot of new eager-beaver immigrants to compete for jobs at the same time as you take a knife and an axe to some of the red-tape and cushy benefits surrounding labour law in both countries. The reaction in terms of protests, strikes, and general mayhem should be quite something!

bonkey wrote:

However, the whole Chicken Little approach just doesn't make sense to me. Peolpe caution us about the imminent failure of a system with precious little to back up these claims other than some fear that it might all go wrong in a future where the status quo regarding imigration controls across Europe remains indefinitely the same. Thats not our future, so I hardly see how it backs up the argument.

That's just it. When it comes to immigration the complexities mean that nobody can tell what will be too much or what the exact consequences will be! And yet people seem to use this as some sort of argument that the ideal approach is always "suck it and see!" - as free as possible until there is a problem (oops - too late!) because our worries may never come to pass. The funny thing is, if I may make a generalisation, such people seem to usually be on the left of the political spectrum and are extremely cautious when it comes to regulation of businesses and markets etc!

fly_agaric

bonkey wrote:

Agreed. However, I will point out that both before and since the accession states have joined, our economy has outstripped the larger, less-likely-to-be-effected populations such as Germany and France...all of whom implemented these "sensible" protectionary limits.

It seems that the evidence of the reality is difference to the claim.

We were already in the middle of a boom (unlike most of the rest of the EU), and the immigrants supplied more labour to keep it going.
I'd like to make clear I was entering this thread with the thought that the barriers that most of the rest of the rest of the EU put up to free movement of these workers made sense for them (IMO), and we can't count on them being removed, not to argue the case that we should have had similar barriers at that time.

bonkey wrote:

I'm undecided, but I'm leaning towards believing that they will either look to set limits that are based on the total foreign percentage in the country (which will then be dependant on the percentage already there), or they will indeed open up their borders.

I disagree. The German and French governments don't want more people voting for the political extremes - which are continuing to increase their political support in both countries by exploiting both xenophobia and fears about "globalisation" (buzzword!:)). I really can't see it being easy for governments to weaken barriers to immigration in either country even though I'd say that is what they would prefer to do.

bonkey wrote:

After all, if your economy is down the tubes, its highly unlikely that someone is gonna choose to go for a better life there then somewhere else nearby with better conditions.

This statement would imply that an easing of the restrictions across the EU will not relieve the pressure on Sweden, the UK, and us? Anyway, I don't agree. Their economies may not be growing but they are far from being "down the tubes".

Wages and working conditions in Germany for example would be so much better in any case that I'm sure plenty of well educated E. Europeans will be willing to take a punt on snagging a job given the chance. Anyway, it looks like our 2-year bar on social welfare for immigrants won't stand up so what's to stop them availing of Germany's welfare state in the meantime if they can't get a job.

bonkey wrote:

On the other hand, dropping protectionist barriers raised against foreign workers could be just the impetus needed to force their workforces to accept that working a short week with a high wage is simply not economically viable, no matter how fervently one believes in a socialist State.

Bit of a shock-therapy for the German and French workforce! Introduce alot of new eager-beaver immigrants to compete for jobs at the same time as you take a knife and an axe to some of the red-tape and cushy benefits surrounding labour law in both countries. The reaction in terms of protests, strikes, and general mayhem should be quite something!

bonkey wrote:

However, the whole Chicken Little approach just doesn't make sense to me. Peolpe caution us about the imminent failure of a system with precious little to back up these claims other than some fear that it might all go wrong in a future where the status quo regarding imigration controls across Europe remains indefinitely the same. Thats not our future, so I hardly see how it backs up the argument.

That's just it. When it comes to immigration the complexities mean that nobody can tell what will be too much or what the exact consequences will be! And yet people seem to use this as some sort of argument that the approach is always "suck it and see!" - as free as possible until there is a problem (oops - too late!). The funny thing is, if I may make a generalisation, such people seem to usually be on the left of the political spectrum and are extremely cautious when it comes to regulation of businesses and markets etc!

ambro25

fly_agaric wrote:

Bit of a shock-therapy for the German and French workforce! Introduce alot of new eager-beaver immigrants to compete for jobs at the same time as you take a knife and an axe to some of the red-tape and cushy benefits surrounding labour law in both countries.

Erm, as an aside to the thread topic but in direct relation to this part of your post: can't speak for Germany as it's too long since I lived and worked there, but I can promise you that France needs it really badly...

fly_agaric wrote:

The reaction in terms of protests, strikes, and general mayhem should be quite something!

True enough, but (-and again in respect of France only) part and parcel of the "knife and an axe to some of the red-tape and cushy benefits" should include curtailment of right to strike and major reform of dole and all of these little subsisting 'corporatist' advantages (e.g. such as 1925-ish -obtained 'coal allowance' for train drivers, FFS!).

(though I would happily accept a pro-immigration label, do you now find me conservative enough, re. your last sentence? )

As an ex-company owner in France (which was moderately labour-intensive), and bearing in mind my Dad still runs his own (again, moderately labour-intensive) in France, I'll tell you this: I didn't, and still wouldn't, care one flying f*ck if the guy who wants to work for me is white/ brown/ black/ green/ purple, if he is East-European EU or Chinese on a permit - so long as he is wanting to put in a day's honest work for a day's honest pay, instead of just 'upping his stats in the system' so he can go back on the dole/benefits next month :mad:

fly_agaric

^^Nice to hear about this stuff from someone with proper personal experience (unlike me).
I wouldn't be arguing against the fact that things have to change - just that such changes combined with stiff competition from immigrants may just be too much for people to take all at once. The reforms should happen (easier said than done), then if these seem to be working they can free up immigration if the supply of labour begins to get tight.

About left and right and immigration - I suppose less nationalistic/traditional right-wing types believe that free movement of labour will mean that that businesses will never be held over a barrel by their workers or suffer labour shortages because the world is so full of desparate people looking for an opportunity to make their lives better (see Bush and his affection for mexican immigrants while others in his party grind their teeth).

ateam

I just read on the net that the Labour Party asked for the deportation of the Nigerian student to be Stopped in March 2005.

Now Labour are asking for permits on foreign workers coming into the country...Does anyone else see the irony?

Blatant opportunism in both cases IMO.

Democracy2005

We need a work-permit system because the number of migrants from the new EU states exceeds IBEC/Government assessment of our "need" for workers by 3 or 4 to one (i.e. 30,000-50,000).