Could Ireland cope with another wave of immigration?

Pittens

To get back to economic arguments,

This can of course happen provided you can persuade the governments & parliaments of the East European states to allow you to discriminate against their citizens. Failing that, you can forget about visas.

The West can easily get an exemption from the treaty. They may well ignore it. Its great that France came onboard about 5 years after Ireland to allow full access to the labour market, and Germany will come onboard in about another year. That will soak up some of the pressure from here and the UK ( particularly Germany, although it remains to be seen how employers and unions react in those more "corporatist" states). However the reasons they stayed out - their labour force can't compete - is still valid. Let's see what happens.

Iif unemployment stays static in Western Europe as companies choose to hire Eastern Europeans in the recovery attitudes will change. It is not guaranteed that we will have the Euro in 2-3 years, it will be finished sometime in our lifetimes. If, well into a boom in Ireland and the UK unemployment stays static and the statistics show positive net immigration they they are turking our jobs ( or rather; jobs that would have gone to the unemployed in a previous recovery).


The best the pro-screw-the-working-classes-with-immigrants lobby can hope for is to keep throwing ad hominens about xenophobia and racism around - even as we are dealing with white christian europeans. Will that work if unemployment stays sticky in a recession?


No it wont. The reason why Germany got an exemption is because it's politcians and it's unions demanded it. Nobody shouted racism. They are in not in any better position next year. It seems that they cant change the terms of the agreement? So lets abandon the agreement. Who even got to vote on it in Europe? Us, twice. Wrong first time. And yes, I know which agreement I am talking about.

The labour party in the UK has started - now it is in opposition and wanting to represent the actual working classes rather than rich central London - to make noises about immigration. One of the Milibands is suggesting that Labour become an anti-immigrant party. The Tories ( for different, and possibly for reasons which might be more legitimately have some whiff of "racism" ) have massively curtailed ex-EU immigration already.

The days of the absolute agreement amongst the ruling classes that immigration is a economic good and a moral right are over, I suspect the aging politically correct "leadership" on the internet to catch up some time soon.

Pittens

peasant wrote: »

So we have to wait until you graduate before we can call you a xenophobe?

:D

How about you deal with his economic arguments without throwing the workd xenophobe about?

Denerick

Pittens wrote: »

To get back to economic arguments,



The West can easily get an exemption from the treaty. They may well ignore it. Its great that France came onboard about 5 years after Ireland to allow full access to the labour market, and Germany will come onboard in about another year. That will soak up some of the pressure from here and the UK ( particularly Germany, although it remains to be seen how employers and unions react in those more "corporatist" states). However the reasons they stayed out - their labour force can't compete - is still valid. Let's see what happens.

Iif unemployment stays static in Western Europe as companies choose to hire Eastern Europeans in the recovery attitudes will change. It is not guaranteed that we will have the Euro in 2-3 years, it will be finished sometime in our lifetimes. If, well into a boom in Ireland and the UK unemployment stays static and the statistics show positive net immigration they they are turking our jobs ( or rather; jobs that would have gone to the unemployed in a previous recovery).


The best the pro-screw-the-working-classes-with-immigrants lobby can hope for is to keep throwing ad hominens about xenophobia and racism around - even as we are dealing with white christian europeans. Will that work if unemployment stays sticky in a recession?


No it wont. The reason why Germany got an exemption is because it's politcians and it's unions demanded it. Nobody shouted racism. They are in not in any better position next year. It seems that they cant change the terms of the agreement? So lets abandon the agreement. Who even got to vote on it in Europe? Us, twice. Wrong first time. And yes, I know which agreement I am talking about.

The labour party in the UK has started - now it is in opposition and wanting to represent the actual working classes rather than rich central London - to make noises about immigration. One of the Milibands is suggesting that Labour become an anti-immigrant party. The Tories ( for different, and possibly for reasons which might be more legitimately have some whiff of "racism" ) have massively curtailed ex-EU immigration already.

The days of the absolute agreement amongst the ruling classes that immigration is a economic good and a moral right are over, I suspect the aging politically correct "leadership" on the internet to catch up some time soon.

This ignores the elephant in the room. How are we going to pay for our retirement entitlements without mass immigration?

Pittens

This ignores the elephant in the room. How are we going to pay for our retirement entitlements without mass immigration?

We dont retire until later.

Utterly defunct argument. All immigrants to Ireland now add to the problem.

Denerick

Pittens wrote: »

We dont retire until later.

Wrong. By 2020 Europe will begin to see the retirement of its 'baby boomer' generation. As will America. America benefits by having a sustainable population that replaces itself as well as having massive Mexican and Latin American immigration. They go on to have large families, larger than the average American family. Pension expenses will skyrocket. At present we simply don't have the cash to pay for it.

If the average age of an immigrant is 25 and the average age of an Irish person in the labour force is 45, then the maths isn't too hard to work out. By the time they're 45 they'll be paying the taxes to allow your parents to rest on a Donegal beach.

JustinDee

Pittens wrote: »

All immigrants to Ireland now add to the problem.

Rubbish.
They contribute to the system in question.

Pittens

If the average age of an immigrant is 25 and the average age of an Irish person in the labour force is 45, then the maths isn't too hard to work out. By the time they're 45 they'll be paying the taxes to allow your parents to rest on a Donegal beach.

ignoring the fact that the 45 year old age for the Irish worker is almost certainly wrong. And ignoring America.

What happens when the immigrants get to 65? Are they having any more children than the rest of us? No. That mean more immigration to cover their pensions when they get to 65, so more immigrants needed; and on, and on.

Simple solution to this: the pension scheme is a pyramid scheme which depends on generations having more children than the previous generations, or allowing in more immigrants . I expect to work until I am 75 unless I get very lucky. That solves the pyramid problem, and it is in fact how Western Governments will solve, and - in the case of the UK and others - are solving the problem. The change will be incremental but in general a decade will be added over the next 40-50 years to the retirement age.


If, for instance, in the future 40% of the population is over 65 - a fairly extreme supposition which probably does not apply to Ireland - then only about 20% will be over 75 assuming life expectancy is 85. That 20% will is about equal to the number over 65 now. So people work to 75.

And If immigrants are "solving" the problem by having more children ( as, supposedly, in America) then that pyramid problem is fobbed off until the next generation, as birth rates converge. Somebody is going to pay for the immigrant baby boom (if the immigrants are having one) in the next generation. That, clearly, is not a long term solution.

The real solution to the pension crisis is to work longer. I have already factored that in, immigrants or no.

Pittens

And all this is irrelevant to be argument about whether we will control immigration if unemployment fails to fall when we come out of recession. Note in your answers that immigrants don't vote. Parties which keep a permanent large underclass will not survive very long. Telling them that their pensions are going to be better - pensions they cant save for - is not going to work.

Denerick

You are correct in that immigrants will eventually retire and require retirement benefits, I'm well aware of that. In an ageing population however, attracting young blood is key. It is not healthy to have a top heavy population pyramid.

And yes, I am advocating perpetual immigration. It is no coincidence that the most successful economies in the world all had massive inward migration.

sirromo

Denerick wrote: »

It is no coincidence that the most successful economies in the world all had massive inward migration.

You're putting the cart before the horse. It's because they were successful that had so much immigration.

Denerick

sirromo wrote: »

You're putting the cart before the horse. It's because they were successful that had so much immigration.

Not necessarily. Its difficult to figure out which is more important than the other, but generally its a self perpetuating cycle.

A strong economy requires more labour -> immigrants provide labour -> Immigrants increase consumer demand -> Immigrants contribute to a strong economy, which requires more labour -> Immigrants provide labour -> etc...

Furthermore, we have an addiction to attracting low skill immigrants to Ireland and the UK. The Americans attract a ream of highly educated, scientific and creative minds. The fact that they are the most dynamic economy on the planet is a testament to that.

Then they have Mexicans to clean their toilets for them.

They've got it all figured out really.

View

Pittens wrote: »

The West can easily get an exemption from the treaty.

The EU Treaties form the entire legal basis for the EU. They are the "Constitutional Law" (i.e. "Basic Law") of the EU upon which every other EU directive and regulation is based. You don't just "get an exemption" from part of the Treaties as to "achieve an exemption" would involve re-writing the Treaties. That requires the consent of every member state.

Legally, this is the equivalent of Roscommon seeking to get an exemption from (some of) the provisions of Bunreacht na hEireann so they can disriminate against people from Westmeath.

There is (almost) zero chance of anyone attempting this much less of it happening.

Pittens wrote: »

They may well ignore it.

In which case, any member state concerned would be in clear breech of its Treaty obligations. The ECJ would rule against and fine them. The member state is then ultimately faced with the choice of paying up and complying with the law or announcing it is leaving the EU.

Needless to say, following such a blatant breech of an international treaty, no other state would trust such a state to apply any other international treaty that is has signed or would sign.

Pittens wrote: »

It seems that they cant change the terms of the agreement? So lets abandon the agreement. Who even got to vote on it in Europe? Us, twice.

The Accession Treaty (of the "EU-10" former NAS) was voted on by the Oireachtas only. No referendum was held on it.

The "freedom of movement of workers" principle (which is referred to inaccurately - including by myself - as "freedom of movement of people" as it has been extended in some specific cases) were included in the original European Communities Treaties. Ireland accepted these Treaties as part of Ireland's Accession to then European Communities. There was a (single) referendum related to it in which people voted Yes - Apart from a small minority, I'd doubt that people want us to abandon these agreements.

Pittens

You don't just "get an exemption" from part of the Treaties as to "achieve an exemption" would involve re-writing the Treaties. That requires the consent of every member state.

Well Germany and France and others clearly did. Already.

Trust me Mate. If Spanish, French, Italian or other unemployment fails to fall in a recovery, - the treaty will either be renegotiated or dropped. The alternative is to allow the 40% of Spanish unemployed between 18 & 24 ( now) to be the 40% of unemployed between 18 & 30 in 6 years. And if you have never worked by the age of 30 you never will.

Needless to say, following such a blatant breech of an international treaty, no other state would trust such a state to apply any other international treaty that is has signed or would sign.

Rubbish.

There is a similar legal prohibition on deficits - for which countries can get fined if they exceed 3%. All are in breach, none are being fined. Countries are not sucicidal. The Spanish often over-fish. France and Germany ignore competition rules all the time and favour their own companies for government work, the accounts of the European commission cannot be investigated. All of this is illegal.

If immigration is not the magic brilliant pill as proposed by the unholy alliance of the cultural left and the libertarian far right it will be curtailed. I doubt the Euro will survive, leaving the EU as a trading block with freedom of movement in the West, and curtailed labour and capital movements elsewhere. Thats because when ideological systems fail they are replaced.

Pittens

Furthermore, we have an addiction to attracting low skill immigrants to Ireland and the UK. The Americans attract a ream of highly educated, scientific and creative minds. The fact that they are the most dynamic economy on the planet is a testament to that.

the cost is major inequality as measure by the Gini index, Europe does not intend to follow that route.

As for their high skilled immigration - the H1B visa makes their workers indentured slaves, will be do that? ( however it is smart) . It keeps wages high, and still attracts the best workers from around the world. With a visa system within the EU we could do the same.

opo

Denerick wrote: »

Not necessarily. Its difficult to figure out which is more important than the other, but generally its a self perpetuating cycle.

A strong economy requires more labour -> immigrants provide labour -> Immigrants increase consumer demand -> Immigrants contribute to a strong economy, which requires more labour -> Immigrants provide labour -> etc...

.

What about the economies these people leave behind?

They must be powerhouses with all this excess labour according to your theory. Unlike yourself, I have no difficulty figuring out which is more important and would agree with sirromo.

There is also an ethical and moral dimension to poaching other countries workers - the brightest and the best - that you might offer your thoughts on.

Pittens

Ed Miliband speaks - now that Labour are out of power - on immigration and globalisation.

Fourth, we have to make our internationalism work for people in this country. Our embrace of the opportunities of globalisation neglected its unequal impact. It meant that we seemed not to understand concerns about immigration and address them. We did not appreciate the sense of confusion, loss and powerlessness that people felt about loneliness, insecurity, the sheer difficulty in holding together a family. We asked too little and promised too much and the result was an uncomprehending anger at what felt like our betrayal. I am critical of the inequalities, unsustainabililties and instabilities of globalisation but .... I am resolutely internationalist.

He would have been accused of racism a mere 5 years ago, of course these kind of things are easy to say in opposition.

Guardian link

View

Pittens wrote: »

Well Germany and France and others clearly did. Already.

During the transition period after accession, member states were allowed to put restrictions in place if they so chose. Germany and France chose to do so. There is nothing new in such action - all accession treaties to date have allowed for (various) restrictions during the transition phases. And, yes, that did apply also in the case of Ireland.

Pittens wrote: »

There is a similar legal prohibition on deficits - for which countries can get fined if they exceed 3%. All are in breach, none are being fined. Countries are not sucicidal. The Spanish often over-fish. France and Germany ignore competition rules all the time and favour their own companies for government work, the accounts of the European commission cannot be investigated. All of this is illegal.

You are welcome to provide links to court rulings on any or all of the above "illegal" matters. I suggest you start with the rulings of the ECJ and follow up with the Court of Auditors.

djpbarry

Denerick wrote: »

Furthermore, we have an addiction to attracting low skill immigrants to Ireland and the UK.

I'm not so sure about that. Research from the ESRI (2007; see Table 2) showed immigrants in Ireland were, on average, better educated than the natives.

Pittens

You are welcome to provide links to court rulings on any or all of the above "illegal" matters. I suggest you start with the rulings of the ECJ and follow up with the Court of Auditors.

LOL.

My point was clear: there were no rulings by the ECJ. The governments ignored the directives and laws anyway. The ECJ never got invoked. The maastrict treaty imposes, and I quote from the BBC

The 1992 Maastricht Treaty imposed common rules: low budget deficits, national debts below 60% of GDP, no bailouts and no central bank intervention in the market for government debt.

Apparently the treaty has ceased to have any legal force whatsoever. It may as well have been written in sand. Rightly so. Circumstances change, there is a credit crucnch, and the thing is ignored. Thats because when ideological systems fail they are replaced.

it is possible there is something special about legal agreements on labour movement which are far more special than the entire ( and now utterly defunct) Maastricht treaty, but I really really doubt it.

Pittens

showed immigrants in Ireland were, on average, better educated than the natives.

He should have said, then: we are addicted to allowing people to do low skilled jobs whilst protecting the civil service etc. Or Dentists. If I see another ad telling me I have to go to Hungary to get cosmetics on teeth I will..... wonder why they can't come here.

View

Pittens wrote: »

LOL.

My point was clear: there were no rulings by the ECJ. The governments ignored the directives and laws anyway. The ECJ never got invoked.

Anyone can go the ECJ - if, as you claim, "France and Germany ignore competition rules all the time and favour their own companies for government work", it should be real easy for you to back this assertion up with relevant court rulings. I'd imagine the damages alone would be headline grabbing.

That's just your easiest allegation to prove - it shouldn't be too hard to prove the rest of your assertions about "illegalities".

Pittens wrote: »

it is possible there is something special about legal agreements on labour movement which are far more special than the entire ( and now utterly defunct) Maastricht treaty, but I really really doubt it.

As for your point on labour movement, it doesn't date from the Maastricht Treaty. It was there decades before Maastricht was even thought about.

Pittens

As for your point on labour movement, it doesn't date from the Maastricht Treaty. It was there decades before Maastricht was even thought about.

Obviously it wasn't. I am talking about accession States. That treaty had to be updated because how else would Germany get an exemption.

That's just your easiest allegation to prove - it shouldn't be too hard to prove the rest of your assertions about "illegalities".

The easiest allegation I have to prove is that the entire Maastricht treaty, one of the cornerstones of the modern EU is being ignored. Why dont you disprove that one. Tell you what, I will withdraw the France is giving preferential treatment to their own companies. ( YOu have latched on to that one as the easiest one to prove, precisely because it is the hardest one to prove. ).

We seem to be taking at cross purposes. I am saying the ECJ is never invoked to challenge countries when they ignore provisions in treaties, like for instance - the entire Maastricht treaty - you are asking me to prove my case with reference to ECJ rulings.

Either you are deaf, or I am dumb.

No iam not. I just looked back at my last post

The governments ignored the directives and laws anyway. The ECJ never got invoked.

From that statement you asked me to prove my case with reference to ECJ rulings. The very court I said was never involved.

Denerick

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. Research from the ESRI (2007; see Table 2) showed immigrants in Ireland were, on average, better educated than the natives.

Thats very interesting actually. I suppose that takes greater stock of high skilled immigrants who come to work in our health system from the Middle East and Africa, but what about the thousands of unskilled eastern European migrants?

djpbarry

Denerick wrote: »

Thats very interesting actually. I suppose that takes greater stock of high skilled immigrants who come to work in our health system from the Middle East and Africa, but what about the thousands of unskilled eastern European migrants?

Why are you assuming that Eastern European migrants are (generally) unskilled? Look at Table 11 and compare to Table 2 - it would appear that the average immigrant from the new accession states is better educated than the average native.

sealgaire

PirateShampoo wrote: »

With the 2nd highest rate of unemployment behind Spain, why would imergrants chose Ireland?

Social welfare

Mena

sealgaire wrote: »

Social welfare

They'd of course need to fulfil the 2 years habitual residence requirements first.

Denerick

sealgaire wrote: »

Social welfare

You do know that if you haven't built up the stamps, you will have to seek jobseekers allowance, which is means tested?

Pittens

You do know that if you haven't built up the stamps, you will have to seek jobseekers allowance, which is means tested?

Would people coming here necessarily have any means?

Nodin

Pittens wrote: »

Would people coming here necessarily have any means?

They'd have to satisfy the Habitual Residence Conditions to apply, which rules out just arriving and claiming.

opo

Nodin wrote: »

They'd have to satisfy the Habitual Residence Conditions to apply, which rules out just arriving and claiming.

Unlike the asylum system - where they can enjoy instant and comprehensive access to welfare (and simply work illegally - easily undercutting the rest).