Are our 'hands tied' on immigration?

O'Morris

Do we have any power to limit immigration from other EU states? I've heard several people over the last few months saying that our hands are tied and we we just have to put up with it. I would be interested to know if that really is the case. Does anyone know if would cause problems if the government announced that they were extending the restrictions we already have on Bulgaria and Romania to the other eastern European countries?

Mena

"put up with it". You make it sound like its a bad thing?

sink

The free movement of capital, labour, products and services is one of the founding priciples of the EU, it is basically the reason we joined. There is no way to restrict the movement of EU citizens within the EU. The only way we could stop EU citizens moving to Ireland would be to withdraw from the EU. We in turn can choose to live and work anywhere in the EU. If the dowturn in our economy is deep and sustained we all could find ourselves availing of freedom to travel and work within the EU before long.

O'Morris

sink wrote: »

There is no way to restrict the movement of EU citizens within the EU.

But we've already restricted the movement of EU citizens from Bulgaria and Romania. And most of the other EU countries have restricted the movement of people from the other easter European countries. What's to stop us from doing the same?

ionix5891

so when the going gets tought we just blame the immigrants?

excellent plan there :rolleyes:


how long before someone makes a "DEY TOOOK OUR JOUBS!" post

marco_polo

O'Morris wrote: »

But we've already restricted the movement of EU citizens from Bulgaria and Romania. And most of the other EU countries have restricted the movement of people from the other easter European countries. What's to stop us from doing the same?

You can restrict it for a 7 year period but after that no limits apply. I disagree that even this restriction should be in place.

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

But we've already restricted the movement of EU citizens from Bulgaria and Romania. And most of the other EU countries have restricted the movement of people from the other easter European countries. What's to stop us from doing the same?

When all member states ratified the accession treaties of the 10 members in 2004, they also stipulated that 8 of the former soviet states would not have full free movement for a maximum of 7 years, Britain and Ireland opted-out and allowed all new members to access their labour markets. We're past the point where we can opt-in as we already ratified the treaty in 2004, it would be illegal to introduce travel restrictions domestically as we would be going against a treaty we have already signed. The only way to overule that treaty would be to sign a new one and somehow I don't think the other member states would go for it. All other member states have to end their restrictions on foreign labour by 2011 anyway. For those countries that joined in 2007 the restriction which we opted in for have to be removed by 2014. Once removed the only way to reintroduce them would be to sign another treaty.

O'Morris

ionix5891 wrote:

so when the going gets tought we just blame the immigrants?

Who said anything about blaming the immigrants? I don't the blame the immigrants for anything.

marco_polo wrote: »

You can restrict it for a 7 year period but after that no limits apply.

Would the government be able to impose those restrictions now if they wanted to?

I disagree that even this restriction should be in place.

I think you're probably in the minority in holding that view.

sink

ionix5891 wrote: »

how long before someone makes a "DEY TOOOK OUR JOUBS!" post

I want a quater pounder with cheese you ****ing goo-bags!:mad:

O'Morris

sink wrote: »

We're past the point where we can opt-in as we already ratified the treaty in 2004, it would be illegal to introduce travel restrictions domestically as we would be going against a treaty we have already signed.

So are hands are tied then? We just have to put up with it?

marco_polo

O'Morris wrote: »

So are hands are tied then? We just have to put up with it?

We've had to "put up" with it for 35 years now.

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

So are hands are tied then? We just have to put up with it?

Yes they are. 'Put up with it' has such negative connotations, without the foreign labour we would not have been able to extend the celtic tiger boom for as long as we did. Most of the eastern Europeans that came looking for work have already moved back home to their booming economies. As jobs here dry up those that are still footloose will also move on to other countries in search for work. The vast majority of them are not here indefinitely.

O'Morris

sink wrote: »

We're past the point where we can opt-in as we already ratified the treaty in 2004, it would be illegal to introduce travel restrictions domestically as we would be going against a treaty we have already signed.

Two further questions on this. If travel restrictions are illegal, would it also be illegal to introduce work restrictions? Does the free movement of people just cover people's right to travel throughout the EU or does it also cover people's right to work in each member state?

Also, what method did we use to restrict the movement of people from Bulgaria and Romania? Was that covered in the same treaty where we allowed the free movement of people from the other new EU countries?

kevteljeur

O'Morris wrote: »

Two further questions on this. If travel restrictions are illegal, would it also be illegal to introduce work restrictions? Does the free movement of people just cover people's right to travel throughout the EU or does it also cover people's right to work in each member state?

Also, what method did we use to restrict the movement of people from Bulgaria and Romania? Was that covered in the same treaty where we allowed the free movement of people from the other new EU countries?

My girlfriend is Romanian, and so I've had to familiarise myself with a lot of this. And I can tell you that there is a lot of misunderstanding on the subject, particularly from employers.

First off, there are no restrictions on travel for EU citizens, including those from Romania and Bulgaria. Someone from Romania can come to Ireland and live here for as long as they want, provided that they can demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to do so, given that they are under work restrictions.

That brings us to the work restrictions, and this is not so very simple. First off, any Romanian or Bulgarian can come to Ireland and be self-employed. It's a basic EU right to be able to do business anywhere in the EU without restrictions (well, apart from local laws - you couldn't sell automatic weapons here, for example). However, to be directly employed is a little more tricky, and varies from country to country. In Ireland, you'll get some of the information you need here:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories

However, you do need to dig around a bit in several categories to get the full picture. In nutshell, if you arrived from Romania or Bulgaria after 1st January 2007, you'll need a Green Card, which is available if the employer can't find an EU worker able to do the job, the job is outside several categories, and is paid more than 30k a year.

Obviously, in light of the self-employment rule and the black-market, it's a bit ridiculous - but I'm biased since my girlfriend is Romanian. I believe that each group of countries that joins the EU has a set of clauses and opt-outs applied by each country, in a treaty.

Carawaystick

most immigrants ( and possibly a majority) are british

I wonder how many irish emigrants there are worldwide to compare to the immigrants here now (or at the peak of immigration)

I cant speak for Marco Polo but if there were no restrictions on the new entrants (04/07 countries), then there would have been considerably less immigration here? i.e. they would have had Germany, France Italy etc to work in. The sooner all the rest of the EU allow free movement of the better, instead of telling us off for exercising our right not to ratify a treaty.

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

Two further questions on this. If travel restrictions are illegal, would it also be illegal to introduce work restrictions? Does the free movement of people just cover people's right to travel throughout the EU or does it also cover people's right to work in each member state?

Also, what method did we use to restrict the movement of people from Bulgaria and Romania? Was that covered in the same treaty where we allowed the free movement of people from the other new EU countries?

On the first question yes. The treaty of Rome 1957 established the freedom of movement of labour and has been on force ever since. We signed up to this treaty in 1973 and the only way to change it would be to remove our signature which would require ratification by all members states, thus removing us from the common market.

The second question is a bit more complex. Whenever a new state joins a treaty must be ratified by all member states to add their name to the founding treaties. This accession treaty can add stipulations for joining that the new members must adhere to. That is how we and other countries were able to restrict access to labour markets. The time period was negotiated between the accession countries and the existing members. The accession countries of course would not accept an indefinite restriction and existing members would not open the doors immediately. So a compromise was struck and a period of 7 years was agreed by the end of which all restrictions must be lifted. This is legally binding and can only be changed by another treaty signed by all parties.

marco_polo

Carawaystick wrote: »

most immigrants ( and possibly a majority) are british

I wonder how many irish emigrants there are worldwide to compare to the immigrants here now (or at the peak of immigration)

I cant speak for Marco Polo but if there were no restrictions on the new entrants (04/07 countries), then there would have been considerably less immigration here? i.e. they would have had Germany, France Italy etc to work in. The sooner all the rest of the EU allow free movement of the better, instead of telling us off for exercising our right not to ratify a treaty.

It is possible that we would have seen less immigration had the other states opened up their countries immediately. However it was precisely what Irelands economy needed at the time as we had a severe labour crisis. As we are having a bit of a slowdown at the moment obviously we will become a less attractive location and will see a resultant reduction in the rates of immigration as a result.

kevteljeur

Interestingly enough, some of those countries are seeing a severe labour crisis, and are doing everything (well, quite a bit) they can to keep workers there. Of course for them there is Russia, Ukraine and Moldova to supply cheap labour - people who will literally work for food - and so the circle goes on. I suspect that there will be, as with Ireland, a re-migration back home for many of these people. Home is, after all, where the heart is.

marco_polo

kevteljeur wrote: »

Interestingly enough, some of those countries are seeing a severe labour crisis, and are doing everything (well, quite a bit) they can to keep workers there. Of course for them there is Russia, Ukraine and Moldova to supply cheap labour - people who will literally work for food - and so the circle goes on. I suspect that there will be, as with Ireland, a re-migration back home for many of these people. Home is, after all, where the heart is.

Judging from an article I read recently about how much the amount of inactive PPSN Numbers has risen, it may have already begun. (Or else there are alot of nixers being done )

VoidStarNull

The following statistics seem appropriate (culled from wikipedia):

Lithuania:

Lower wages may have been a factor that in 2004 influenced the trend of emigration to wealthier EU countries, something that has been made legally possible as a result of accession to the European Union. In 2006, income tax was reduced to 27% and a reduction to 24% was made in October of 2007. Income tax reduction and 19.1 % annual wage growth[23] is starting to make an impact with some emigrants gradually beginning to come back.[24] The latest official data show emigration in early 2006 to be 30% lower than the previous year, with 3,483 people leaving in four months.

Poland:

Since joining the European Union, many workers have left to work in other EU countries (particularly Ireland and the UK) because of high unemployment, which was the second-highest in the EU (14.2% in May 2006).[17] However, with the rapid growth of the salaries, booming economy, strong value of Polish currency, and quickly decreasing unemployment (8% in March 2008[18]) exodus of Polish workers seems to be over. In 2008 people who came back outnumbered thoses leaving the country.[19]

Although immigration to Ireland was not used an argument by the NO campaign against Lisbon, it was mentioned as a "factor" in the reports about the Eurobarometer poll after the referendum. (Not sure how they determined this). Concerns about immigration may need to be addressed by the YES side if there is a Lisbon II.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

So are hands are tied then? We just have to put up with it?

What do you mean "put up with it"? What is it that you are "putting up with"?

Just so we're absolutely clear here, to "put up with" something means, as far as I'm concerned, to tolerate something unpleasant.

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

What do you mean "put up with it"?

I mean that it's just something that we're going to have to endure for the foreseeable future. Being in the EU means that our hands are tied and we can't do anything about it. If we were an independent country we would be able to take action to protect our workers from the competition of cheap foreign labour at a time of recession but as we're in the EU we have no choice but to let them continue coming in.

Just so we're absolutely clear here, to "put up with" something means, as far as I'm concerned, to tolerate something unpleasant.

I think immigration has been a very pleasant experience but like most pleasant experiences too much of it is not a good thing. I've think we've had too much immigration over the last few years.

I think we both know well that most Irish people are not happy about what's happening to this country and if a vote was to be taken tomorrow morning most Irish people would vote to restrict immigration. The result would be far more decisive as well compared with the Lisbon result.

If we do decide to stay in the EU we're going to need to use our considerable influence to get the law changed so that national governments are given power to temporarily revoke the automatic right to free movement if they deem it to be in their national interest. Considering that concern over immigration was a significant factor in the Lisbon Treaty vote, the EUers might want to consider doing something about it as a way to assuage the no voters.

ixtlan

The thing to bear in mind about the free movement of EU citizens is that it works both ways.

While Polish people have come here during the boom, and some are likely to leave during the recession to return to a booming Poland, the Irish can also choose to go work in Poland, or France or Germany. Unfortunately in some ways we are a very insular country with the majority of workers (according to what I see) considering it unthinkable to go work in a different country with a different language. We therefore are losing out on one of the benefits of the EU.

It's perhaps useful to look at the free travel area between ourselves and the UK. There's a lot of history behind that, but how would people feel if the UK in a time of recession decided to restrict access to their labour market to the Irish? We would be outraged, but why should we be? We would argue I think that we and the British are the same people, that it's just "the right thing" that we can work where we want in the UK or Ireland. So if you agree that that is what we think the British should do, I'd suggest that you expand that to the whole EU.

Ix.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

If we were an independent country we would be able to take action to protect our workers from the competition of cheap foreign labour at a time of recession but as we're in the EU we have no choice but to let them continue coming in.

Actually it is expected that net emigration will commence once again in the not-too-distant future due to the downturn in the economy - people are not going to come here if there are no jobs. To quote the ESRI:

"It seems implausible to us that migration flows would not react to [the employment] situation...".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/emigration-spectre-back-to-haunt-after-20-years-1419972.html

O'Morris wrote: »

I've think we've had too much immigration over the last few years.

How much is too much? What would be an acceptable level?

O'Morris wrote: »

I think we both know well that most Irish people are not happy about what's happening to this country...

I'm not sure what you mean; could you be a little more specific?

O'Morris wrote: »

...and if a vote was to be taken tomorrow morning most Irish people would vote to restrict immigration.

It is restricted, is it not?

O'Morris wrote: »

If we do decide to stay in the EU we're going to need to use our considerable influence to get the law changed so that national governments are given power to temporarily revoke the automatic right to free movement if they deem it to be in their national interest.

I could not disagree more. We're either in or we're out. We can't demand that we should have the right to restrict the number of EU citizens entering our country, while at the same demand that Irish citizens should have free access to all EU states.

cabinteelytom

The Charter of Fundamantal Rights ceases to be pious platitude and will be given legal effect by the Lisbon treaty. The Charter purports to set out the rights of the 'EU Citizen' ; which is misleading.( The EU citizen was brought into existence by the Mastricht treaty). I found copies of the CFR at http://eur-lex.europa.eu and www.hrcr.org. It is 54 articles long and does not take long to read.
It is a terrible dog's dinner of a document. Some articles give rights to EU citizens, some to 'everyone', some to 'EU residents', some to 'workers' and some place highly specific obligations on vague entities such as the 'Community'.

cabinteelytom

The language of the CFR is so unclear, it will inevitably be interpreted at the whim of individual judges; with a lot of expensive input from " m'learned friends" ( at public expence) , and recourse to higher and other courts ,up towards the ECJ itself.
Several of the articles could be used by illegal immigrants to delay and resist deportation. Examples of such articles are:
14.1 Everyone has a right to education and to have vocational and continuing training.
15.1 Everyone has a right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.
29. Everyone has the right to access a free placement service. [ I think this is 'Job Centre' services]
41.2 .. the right of every person to be heard ,before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken...and ...the administration to give reasons for it's decision.
47. Everyone whose rights and fredoms, guaranteed by the law of the Union, are violated has a right to an effective remedy before a tribunal ...entitled to a fair and public hearing...legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources...
18 The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967...

These are some of the articles which apply to 'everyone', not just EU citizens. Vote for Lisbon II, and this becomes the law of our country.

IRLConor

cabinteelytom wrote: »

The Charter purports to set out the rights of the 'EU Citizen' ; which is misleading.( The EU citizen was brought into existence by the Mastricht treaty).

How is it misleading if Maastricht creates the notion of "EU Citizen" and the CFR sets out the rights of such a citizen?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

and some place highly specific obligations on vague entities such as the 'Community'.

There are two types of use of the word community in that document.

• "Community" - this is the well defined EU sense of "European Community" and is unambiguous.
• "community" - this is the fuzzy sense, but there are no obligations placed upon it.

Can you point out any specific cases were a specific obligation is put on a vague entity?

nesf

O'Morris wrote: »

If we were an independent country we would be able to take action to protect our workers from the competition of cheap foreign labour at a time of recession but as we're in the EU we have no choice but to let them continue coming in.

Cheap foreign labour is a much bigger threat to our workers from them working abroad where the cost of living is far lower than immigrants here. If you immigrate here you have to live here and this means they have to work at a rate that they can live on at our cost of living which is quite high keeping a floor on wages essentially. A guy who makes wheels in China is far more dangerous to an Irish worker who makes wheels than a Chinese worker who immigrates here. The guy who stays in China can work for a small fraction of the wage that he'd have to earn here to have a comparable standard of living.

That and it works both ways, if wages go to crap here but are excellent in London we can hop on a ferry and move over without any legal barriers. Ditto with France, Germany et al.

irish_bob

im not sure the situation is completly black and white with regards our obligations to allow immigrants in under the terms of the eu
when the 10 accession countries joined in 2004 , germany and france did not allow workers from those countries in to the same degree that ireland did

david mc williams wrote an article in relation to this in the last week or 2 in the indo

cabinteelytom

This Charter of Fundamental Rights reduces the legal distinction between EU Citizens and (potentially) millions of people from outside the EU.
( It is a sorry document compared with the marvellous clarity and comprehensiveness of , for instance, the UN Declaration of Human Rights.)
One year ago I was a proud (if slightly deluded ) citizen of a free Republic which fought it's way out of an empire approaching it's zenith, without a State in the world lifting a finger to help. The source of our rights? Well, I and my forebearers took them.
Next year I may be the grateful recipient of eurocrat and burocrat generosity, with my 'rights' interpreted by distant courts, staffed by jobsworths rounded up from the extending eastern edge of the EU.
Maybe.

Conar

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Next year I may be the grateful recipient of eurocrat and burocrat generosity, with my 'rights' interpreted by distant courts, staffed by jobsworths rounded up from the extending eastern edge of the EU.
Maybe.

Isn't that the whole point of democracy?
That the rights of the many outway the rights of the few.

In the past we had local tribal leaders, should we go back to those ways? Then we could all have our own vegetable patches and starve if we had a crop failure.

People in Cork (plucked as an example, could easily be any other county outside the greater Dublin area) often complain about the governments focus on Dublin in a similar way. Aren't they distant courts?

These jobsworths, are they any different to the civil service we complain about here?

cabinteelytom

Not everything about the CFR is bad. That migrant workers have equal pay and employment rights is correct, and the provisions on non-discrimination are fair but overall I am very disappointed at this CFR. I might have expected to get something for giving up my country's independence. The 'rights' unique to me as an EU citizen , which are not also extended to 'any natural or legal person residing in the EU' or to 'everyone' or 'migrants' or 'workers' [I'm a lazy sod] are:
15.2 right to seek employment in any EU state
39. right to vote and stand in European Parliament elections in the member state in which I reside
40. right to vote and stand in municipal elections
46 (when abroad in third countries) entitled to the diplomatic and consular services of any Member State.
That's it. Rights to non-nationals in my country impose considerable burdens (not always reciprocated) upon the civil service and state officials which I am paying for.

After it's adoption, can the Charter be criticised?
Art 54. 'Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or to their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.'
Meaningless formulaic legalese? Perhaps. But I can foresee this Article being cited to suppress debate and intimidate local legislative initiative.
(I may be taking advantage of a temporary loophole of free speech.)

Conar

cabinteelytom wrote: »

It is a sorry document compared with the marvellous clarity and comprehensiveness of , for instance, the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

cabinteelytom wrote: »

After it's adoption, can the Charter be criticised?
Art 54. 'Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised in this Charter or to their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.'
Meaningless formulaic legalese? Perhaps. But I can foresee this Article being cited to suppress debate and intimidate local legislative initiative.
(I may be taking advantage of a temporary loophole of free speech.)

But isn't that pretty much the same as Article 30 in th UN Declaration of Human Rights which you praised above?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article 30 wrote:

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

O'Morris

ixtlan wrote: »

It's perhaps useful to look at the free travel area between ourselves and the UK. There's a lot of history behind that, but how would people feel if the UK in a time of recession decided to restrict access to their labour market to the Irish?

There are three important differences between that and what's happening now. First of all, the differences in wage rates between Irish and British workers is not as great as the difference in wage rates between Irish and Polish workers. Although Irish labour is cheaper than British labour it's nowhere near as low as the cost of Polish labour. Because of this the Poles can more easily undercut Irish workers in the competition for jobs than Irish workers can undercut British workers in the competition for jobs in Britain.

Secondly, Britain's population is ten times the population of Ireland so restricting access to Irish workers at a time of recession is not likely to make much of a difference. It might ease things in sectors were the Irish have traditionally been dominant, such as construction, but overall the average low-wage British worker is unlikely to be greatly affected by a restriction on Irish immigration. It's the reverse with us and the Polish. The population of Poland is 40 million while our population is around 4.3 million (10% of which is non-Irish) and so there are far fewer jobs available than there are people to fill them.

And thirdly, migration between Britain and Ireland is a two-way process. Irish immigration may have always been high but so to has immigration of British people to Ireland. It's different with Ireland and eastern Europe.

djpbarry wrote:

Actually it is expected that net emigration will commence once again in the not-too-distant future due to the downturn in the economy

Who will be the people emigrating though? From the article you linked to:

But the researchers admit that forecasts for migration are full of uncertainty, and it is impossible to know how many of the emigrants will be foreign and how many Irish.

The same article points out that we'll have around 76,000 this year and that around 45,000 people will return home. That means we'll have a net increase of 31,000 this year. So even if it we have a net reduction of 20,000 next year, that reduction will still not make up for this years increase. It means that we'll still have a net increase of 10,000 people over the the two years 2008 and 2009. That's assuming of course that it's only the foreigners who will emigrating next year.

The report also mentions we'll see a further 40,000 people arrive here next year. That means that even in the height of recession we'll still be getting twice as many immigrants, per head of population, as Britain takes in each year.

djpbarry wrote:

How much is too much?

Twice as many as our nearest neighbour would be too much.

djpbarry wrote:

What would be an acceptable level?

An acceptable level would be somewhere around the same level as our nearest neighbour. Immigration into Britain is running at around 200,000 people a year. As Ireland has a tenth of the population of Britain that means we should ideally be getting no more than 20,000 people a year.

djpbarry wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean; could you be a little more specific?

People such as myself are not happy about the fact that the indigenous Irish population has fallen below 90% of the total after just a few years of immigration and that that figure is set to continue falling further in the years ahead unless we take action to reduce the numbers coming in.

The president of Dublin City University has predicted that if current trends continue the indigenous Irish population could be an ethnic minority in their own country by the year 2050
http://www.gaelport.com/index.php?page=clippings&id=55&viewby=date

djpbarry wrote:

It is restricted, is it not?

No, it isn't. We have allowed completely unrestricted access to tens of millions of eastern Europeans.

djpbarry wrote:

I could not disagree more. We're either in or we're out.

If that's the choice then I vote to get out.

djpbarry wrote:

We can't demand that we should have the right to restrict the number of EU citizens entering our country, while at the same demand that Irish citizens should have free access to all EU states.

I never said that we should demand different standards for us and for everyone else. The same rights would apply to all EU member states. If any EU state decided to restrict access to Irish citizens or the citizens of any other EU state then they should be given that right and we should respect it just as our right to restrict access to them should also be respected.

nesf wrote:

Cheap foreign labour is a much bigger threat to our workers from them working abroad where the cost of living is far lower than immigrants here.

I'm sure it is, but immigration in no way removes that threat. Foreign based jobs will always be a threat regardless of the level of immigration we get, but immigration will only be a threat if we allow it to become one. We don't have much control over the Chinese in China but we do have some control over the Chinese in Ireland.

nesf wrote:

If you immigrate here you have to live here and this means they have to work at a rate that they can live on at our cost of living which is quite high keeping a floor on wages essentially.

And what will that floor be? Will it not just be the bare minimum subsistence level required to get by? If we had far fewer people competing for jobs employers would be more inclined to charge above the minimum wage but as we have so many people and so few jobs they can get away with paying the bare minimum.

nesf wrote:

A guy who makes wheels in China is far more dangerous to an Irish worker who makes wheels than a Chinese worker who immigrates here.

What about jobs that can't be easily exported such as all the low-wage jobs in construction and retail? Around 40% of tourism staff are thought to be non-nationals. I don't see how those jobs could be threatened by having low-wage counterparts in China or Poland. They're servicing the domestic market and so the only threat to their jobs or their wages will come from people people working in that same domestic market.

nesf wrote:

The guy who stays in China can work for a small fraction of the wage that he'd have to earn here to have a comparable standard of living.

That's correct, and we have absolutely no control over that. We do (or we should) have control over people working in Ireland and competing with our workers for jobs in this country.

if wages go to crap here but are excellent in London we can hop on a ferry and move over without any legal barriers.

So it's back to the 80s then? If immigration ever causes problems we can just get back on the boat? Could there a better symbol of displacement than that?

nesf

O'Morris wrote: »

If we had far fewer people competing for jobs employers would be more inclined to charge above the minimum wage but as we have so many people and so few jobs they can get away with paying the bare minimum.

Look, this would be a seriously bad thing. If few people are competing for jobs you are correct, employers need to offer higher wages than they would in a more competitive labour market. The problem with this is that this will push up inflation, which is a very bad thing especially for people in the lower wage brackets. Workers don't really benefit from a labour shortage, any increases in wage they get will just be eaten up by the inflation these increases will cause within a few years.

IRLConor

O'Morris wrote: »

People such as myself are not happy about the fact that the indigenous Irish population has fallen below 90% of the total after just a few years of immigration and that that figure is set to continue falling further in the years ahead unless we take action to reduce the numbers coming in.

I guess this is the fundamental part where we differ.

I don't care what portion of the population is indigenous (whatever that really means, given Ireland's history) and I can't see why any percentage could be inherently "good" or "bad". Provided everyone here contributes appropriately I don't give a toss where they were born.

I do get miffed at illegal immigrants who apply for asylum since I consider it (at the very least) to be the height of rudeness to break into someone's house to ask for help. The vast majority of immigrants (AFAIK) don't fall into this category and are decent, genuine, hard working people who contribute to Irish society the same as the rest of us.

petermcqueen

IRLConor wrote: »

I guess this is the fundamental part where we differ.

I don't care what portion of the population is indigenous (whatever that really means, given Ireland's history) and I can't see why any percentage could be inherently "good" or "bad". Provided everyone here contributes appropriately I don't give a toss where they were born.

I do get miffed at illegal immigrants who apply for asylum since I consider it (at the very least) to be the height of rudeness to break into someone's house to ask for help. The vast majority of immigrants (AFAIK) don't fall into this category and are decent, genuine, hard working people who contribute to Irish society the same as the rest of us.

Communist USSR would be the ideal homeland for people like you.

Proper little do gooders, "we are all in this togeather...."

waken up. Everyone knows that masses of immigrant will cause massive unrest unless they adapt to the societal standards to their new country.

ART6

Presumably the EU 7 year rule for the new accession states was intended to give them time to develop to EU standards of living and incomes, since otherwise those with very low labour rates could have a detrimental effect upon the economies of the existing member states? Movement of labour is a fine concept but it can cause serious imbalances. Therefore, in my view, the EU was entirely correct in it's thinking while Ireland and the UK (as usual) became afflicted with political correctness threw open their borders instead of helping the accession states up the ladder. Draining them of their labour resources is no long term help.

Conar

petermcqueen wrote: »

Communist USSR would be the ideal homeland for people like you.

I don't see what he said that would come accross as communist.

petermcqueen wrote: »

Proper little do gooders, "we are all in this togeather...."

waken up. Everyone knows that masses of immigrant will cause massive unrest unless they adapt to the societal standards to their new country.

Have we really seen massive unrest here?
I don't think so.

IRLConor

petermcqueen wrote: »

Communist USSR would be the ideal homeland for people like you.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Really, the thought of me as a communist is quite amusing.

nesf

IRLConor wrote: »

Really, the thought of me as a communist is quite amusing.

Ditto, my leftist friends got a good kick out of it, since I'm one of those "people like you".

IRLConor

nesf wrote: »

I'm one of those "people like you".

Wow, I thought I was the only anarcho-authoritarian member of the Oligarchic Socialist CommieNazi Party!

kevteljeur

ART6 wrote: »

Presumably the EU 7 year rule for the new accession states was intended to give them time to develop to EU standards of living and incomes, since otherwise those with very low labour rates could have a detrimental effect upon the economies of the existing member states? Movement of labour is a fine concept but it can cause serious imbalances. Therefore, in my view, the EU was entirely correct in it's thinking while Ireland and the UK (as usual) became afflicted with political correctness threw open their borders instead of helping the accession states up the ladder. Draining them of their labour resources is no long term help.

Ireland, the UK and Sweden threw open their labour market to the 10 Accession countries because they had an acute labour shortage, not out of political correctness. Inability to meet labour needs would at that point have damaged the growth of their economies. That Ireland's economy was built on the falsehood of house-building and rising property prices is a different discussion; they needed the labour to do it, and it wasn't coming from Ireland.

I think that people in this thread need to differentiate between freedom of movement and opening of labour markets; freedom of movement and freedom of trade are fundamental rights of the EU without which it becomes less useful. As an EU citizen you have the right (with certain caveats, such as the ability to support yourself financially) to live and do business in any other EU state other than your own.

kevteljeur

nesf wrote: »

Look, this would be a seriously bad thing. If few people are competing for jobs you are correct, employers need to offer higher wages than they would in a more competitive labour market. The problem with this is that this will push up inflation, which is a very bad thing especially for people in the lower wage brackets. Workers don't really benefit from a labour shortage, any increases in wage they get will just be eaten up by the inflation these increases will cause within a few years.

It could even be argued that Irish employees (particularly in the public sector, but also in the private) have been overpaid in the last decade relative to other EU states; immigrant workers have been paid at more realistic levels in industries that couldn't function at higher wages levels.

Higher wages = higher costs to subsidise higher wages.

Workers from developing EU countries don't need to worry too much about overheads and financial commitments since they're prepared to sacrifice the former to subsidise the latter in their home country, which have better value for money by comparison. As an Irish worker, however, a low-wage guarantees that you'll never own property or your own car or any significant amount of luxury items; in other words, a situation that results in emigration.

nesf

kevteljeur wrote: »

It could even be argued that Irish employees (particularly in the public sector, but also in the private) have been overpaid in the last decade relative to other EU states; immigrant workers have been paid at more realistic levels in industries that couldn't function at higher wages levels.

Higher wages = higher costs to subsidise higher wages.

Essentially yes, and the transition to more "realistic wages" isn't going to be painless. The wages in the construction sector were as much a product of the relative scarcity of skilled workers in the area that anything else. They were an aberration caused by temporary market conditions rather than anything sustainable or reasonable for the country. Immigrants weren't the reason for the wage drop, they were just the process through which it happened.

ART6

kevteljeur wrote: »

Ireland, the UK and Sweden threw open their labour market to the 10 Accession countries because they had an acute labour shortage, not out of political correctness. Inability to meet labour needs would at that point have damaged the growth of their economies. That Ireland's economy was built on the falsehood of house-building and rising property prices is a different discussion; they needed the labour to do it, and it wasn't coming from Ireland.

I think that people in this thread need to differentiate between freedom of movement and opening of labour markets; freedom of movement and freedom of trade are fundamental rights of the EU without which it becomes less useful. As an EU citizen you have the right (with certain caveats, such as the ability to support yourself financially) to live and do business in any other EU state other than your own.

Agreed!

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

Although Irish labour is cheaper than British labour...

Is it?

O'Morris wrote: »

...there are far fewer jobs available than there are people to fill them.

The current unemployment rate in Ireland is similar to that in the UK.

O'Morris wrote: »

Irish immigration may have always been high but so to has immigration of British people to Ireland.

That is a relatively recent phenomenon; British people began to immigrate to Ireland as our economy was booming.

O'Morris wrote: »

It's different with Ireland and eastern Europe.

It may not be for long. While it is unlikely that large numbers of Irish people will emigrate to Eastern Europe (because English-speaking people tend to be incredibly lazy when it comes to learning other languages) in the near future, there will certainly be some level of emigration to that part of the world. The point is, the option is there if people want to avail of it.

O'Morris wrote: »

Who will be the people emigrating though?

What difference does it make? Net emigration is not a good thing, regardless of the nationality of the emigrants.

O'Morris wrote: »

An acceptable level would be somewhere around the same level as our nearest neighbour.

Why? What makes that the "right" level? Unless you've just picked that number out of thin air? In which case, I could just as easily argue that the UK's rate of immigration is too low.

O'Morris wrote: »

People such as myself are not happy about the fact that the indigenous Irish population has fallen below 90% of the total after just a few years of immigration...

Ireland has been receiving immigrants for far longer than just a "few years".

O'Morris wrote: »

... and that that figure is set to continue falling further in the years ahead unless we take action to reduce the numbers coming in.

As I have already pointed out, it is very unlikely that levels of immigration (anywhere) will not decline as job opportunities become fewer. The whole reason we had high levels of immigration in the first place was the large number of jobs available in this country; in fact the labour force reached a record size in recent years.

Anyway, I, like many others, don’t really give a toss where people are born.

O'Morris wrote: »

The president of Dublin City University has predicted that if current trends continue the indigenous Irish population could be an ethnic minority in their own country by the year 2050

That article is 3 years old; trends that were current in 2005 are no longer current; as I have already said, the level of immigration is declining, so claims of Irish people being an ethnic minority within their own country is just scaremongering. One other thing; from the article you linked to:

“ Unpublished UK-based research, which he does not identify...”

I would not give such a source much credibility.

O'Morris wrote: »

We have allowed completely unrestricted access to tens of millions of eastern Europeans...

... and Central and Western Europeans too. In fact, the largest “ethnic minority” in Ireland is, by some distance, the British.

O'Morris wrote: »

If any EU state decided to restrict access to Irish citizens or the citizens of any other EU state then they should be given that right and we should respect it just as our right to restrict access to them should also be respected.

You think Irish people would happily accept that i.e. being refused access to other EU states?

O'Morris wrote: »

If we had far fewer people competing for jobs employers would be more inclined to charge above the minimum wage...

As has already been pointed out, labour shortages benefit nobody.

O'Morris wrote: »

If immigration ever causes problems we can just get back on the boat?

I don’t think that’s the point; I think a lot of Irish people, young Irish people in particular, gain a sense of security from the knowledge that they are free to emigrate to any country in Europe should things take a turn for the worst here.

ixtlan

O'Morris wrote: »

The president of Dublin City University has predicted that if current trends continue the indigenous Irish population could be an ethnic minority in their own country by the year 2050
http://www.gaelport.com/index.php?page=clippings&id=55&viewby=date

I'm highly dubious about predictions looking so far into the future. 2050 is 42 years away. 42 years ago was 1966. How accurate do you think the predictions made in 1966 would have been about the state of Ireland in 2008, or the 1976 predictions? or the 1986 predictions? Such predictions are really only theoretical since the trends which are used will never continue in the long term.

Having said that, if you believe this guy might be right then it's worth printing the next paragraphs which you didn't mention.

Prof von Prondzynski will also argue that any attempt to stop migration here will lead to a significant decline in the Irish economy, and a return to Ireland's peripheral status in Europe.
...
"People are nervous about immigration. But immigration is almost always a good thing. People think immigrants come here and take jobs, but the opposite is true. They will come and create jobs."


Ix

kevteljeur

O'Morris wrote: »

People such as myself are not happy about the fact that the indigenous Irish population has fallen below 90% of the total after just a few years of immigration and that that figure is set to continue falling further in the years ahead unless we take action to reduce the numbers coming in.

The president of Dublin City University has predicted that if current trends continue the indigenous Irish population could be an ethnic minority in their own country by the year 2050
http://www.gaelport.com/index.php?page=clippings&id=55&viewby=date

Come on, seriously. That's in a linear situation where trends continue at the same rate in the same direction. That's like saying 'based on 2006 figures, by 2050 Ireland will be the wealthiest country in Europe, and have a population of 30 million'. Trends change, we are now in recession, and labour tourists will go home when the money to employ them runs out. That also means re-skilling for the indigenous population, and low-paid jobs being taken by Irish people who were previously being paid much more for skilled work.

So you'll get your wish by virtue of highly negative trends in the Irish economy; the money, and workers, will have gone elsewhere. Interestingly, when that happens, you'll see rising unemployment amongst the indigenous population.

Over-simplified logic would suggest that 'when it's good enough for the foreigners, it must be good enough for us'. Vice-versa must clearly also be true, and I think your desired ethnic purity of times past goes hand in hand with an ailing economy.

Kev_ps3

Immigartion is out of control. Open boarders has been the biggest disaster for this country since the Brits came here hundreds of years ago. We should pull out of the EU and take back our independence before its too late.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Open boarders has been the biggest disaster for this country since the Brits came here hundreds of years ago.

how exactly?

are they eating all our potatoes?