Eastern Europeans - Job Seekers Allowance

johnjoebreen

Should Europeans from the 10 2004 EU Accession States living in Ireland be entitled to Job Seekers Allowance?

Job Seekers Allowance is the social welfare one gets when you're PRSI tax credits run out.

I feel paying JSA to foreigners is a burden on the state.

cursai

Eastern Europeans look for jobs too don't they.
Should Irish people get job seekers allowance when they live elsewhere in europe?

johnjoebreen

cursai wrote: »

Eastern Europeans look for jobs too don't they.
Should Irish people get job seekers allowance when they live elsewhere in europe?

In a lot of nations, US, UAE, Oz the Irish aren't entitled to a penny of a social welfare, and they shouldn't be entitled.

I just feel Ireland along with the UK have been disproportionately hit with this burden since giving Eastern Europeans access to our Labour markets in 2004.

Adding vastly to the labour supply, especially to the low-skilled labour group, has driven down wages and conditions in Ireland and UK making it harder for the indigenous population.

I find that the Law Library or civil servant types who's jobs are not impacted by immigration but benefit from immigration when purchasing their endless cups of milky coffee, are quick to denounced you as a racist/xenophobe if you raise genuine concerns about the impact of immigration on the labour markets.
Its an issue few in this country can't have a proper debate about.

Also would a visa system for the Accession States, rather than free unfettered access have been better looking back in hindsight?

beagle001

Germany and France learnt from the past mistakes,the UK were caught on the hop and Ireland just did not give a damn as long as the houses kept being built.
We never learn from other EU states mistakes instead Ireland thinks it knows it all and look where we are now.
We cannot even afford to pay benefits for our own citizens never mind the Eastern crowds and the questionable assylum seekers.
I know some Eastern Europeans in Uni who are actually moaning that their fuel allowance was late,these folks are co habiting claiming 2 rent allowances,childrens allowance,fuel allowance and education allowance as well as the grant.
Now those benefits are there but I could not listen to them moaning about a slight delay in their apyment,if we went to Poland we would be told to F-ck off.

Cavehill Red

Some interesting numbers here - http://skinflicks.blogspot.com/2010/09/dole-we-cant-afford.html
Ten times the number of Eastern Europeans as Western Europeans signing on in Ireland currently.
And plenty of non-EU too. I didn't think they were entitled to welfare?

johnjoebreen

How come this can't be brought up the political agenda?

beagle001

Because they are cowards in Dail Eireann and effectively a mere servant to their masters in Brussels.
Our budget will need approval from Europe before December,they have not the balls to address this issue as it actually does not affect them in the Dail.
Its everyday folk who are able to see the real problems on the ground johnjoe

meditraitor

beagle001 wrote: »

Because they are cowards in Dail Eireann and effectively a mere servant to their masters in Brussels.
Our budget will need approval from Europe before December,they have not the balls to address this issue as it actually does not affect them in the Dail.
Its everyday folk who are able to see the real problems on the ground johnjoe

You are deluded if you think a few thousand eastern Europeans on the scratcher is the cause of our problems!

beagle001

No I am not deluded,I never said they were the big problem here just one of many and it is a problem that could have been heavily avoided and saved this country X amount of millions these past few years.
Its a different debate entirely the reason for this mess in Ireland and belongs in a different forum one which I would gladly debate with you on.

meditraitor

beagle001 wrote: »

No I am not deluded,I never said they were the big problem here just one of many and it is a problem that could have been heavily avoided and saved this country X amount of millions these past few years.
Its a different debate entirely the reason for this mess in Ireland and belongs in a different forum one which I would gladly debate with you on.

How could we have saved the country millions? If you come on here and make sweeping statements you better be able to back it up with facts!

Please show me how eastern European immigrants have cost Ireland inc millions!

Cavehill Red

14,000 unemployment claimants X 196 euro minimum per week = 2.78 million weekly in dole payments alone currently.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

14,000 unemployment claimants X 196 euro minimum per week = 2.78 million weekly in dole payments alone currently.

And did those Eastern Europeans previously pay tax?

regards,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

And did those Eastern Europeans previously pay tax?

regards,
Scofflaw

Who knows?
They're entitled to the payments the minute they arrive, so likely some did and some did not.
Another useful question to ask is how many claimants from Eastern Europe actually live here full-time? Stories of people flying in to sign on are rampant, facilitated by a stretched social welfare system that only signs people on every few months and doesn't conduct spot checks on living arrangements.
Given that the dole here is higher than the average industrial wage in some of these countries, it's a no-brainer to claim here whether living here or not.
This is the result of voting yes in the second Maastricht referendum, by the way - the one that the Government told us would lead to 'at most' about 10,000 arrivals from the accession states.

View

cursai wrote: »

Eastern Europeans look for jobs too don't they.
Should Irish people get job seekers allowance when they live elsewhere in europe?

johnjoebreen wrote: »

In a lot of nations, US, UAE, Oz the Irish aren't entitled to a penny of a social welfare, and they shouldn't be entitled.

Is that a:

1. Yes, Irish people should get job seekers allowance when they live elsewhere in europe, or a,
2. No, Irish people should NOT get job seekers allowance when they live elsewhere in europe?

PS The USA, UAE and Oz are not actually in Europe.

meditraitor

Cavehill Red wrote: »

14,000 unemployment claimants X 196 euro minimum per week = 2.78 million weekly in dole payments alone currently.

So 3% of the unemployed in Ireland are Eastern Europeans........ Worthy of a thread no doubt.

What % of eastern europeans living in ireland are unemployed?

What % of the unemployed have worked here for 5 or more years before becoming unemployed?

or just tell me were you got those figures and I will go look myself!

Cavehill Red

I got those figures from that blog, which seems to have got them from the CSO.
www.cso.ie
Knock yourself out.

View

johnjoebreen wrote: »

Should Europeans from the 10 2004 EU Accession States living in Ireland be entitled to Job Seekers Allowance?

Job Seekers Allowance is the social welfare one gets when you're PRSI tax credits run out.

I feel paying JSA to foreigners is a burden on the state.

I wasn't aware that it was customary to refer to people you share a common citizenship with as "foreigners".

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Who knows?
They're entitled to the payments the minute they arrive, so likely some did and some did not.
Another useful question to ask is how many claimants from Eastern Europe actually live here full-time? Stories of people flying in to sign on are rampant, facilitated by a stretched social welfare system that only signs people on every few months and doesn't conduct spot checks on living arrangements.
Given that the dole here is higher than the average industrial wage in some of these countries, it's a no-brainer to claim here whether living here or not.
This is the result of voting yes in the second Maastricht referendum, by the way - the one that the Government told us would lead to 'at most' about 10,000 arrivals from the accession states.

Presumably the people who complain about the Eastern Europeans costing us money know, since otherwise I'm quite sure they would realise they can't tell whether the Eastern Europeans have cost us money or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

Presumably the people who complain about the Eastern Europeans costing us money know, since otherwise I'm quite sure they would realise they can't tell whether the Eastern Europeans have cost us money or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think since it's already been demonstrated that the dole bill alone amounts to just under 3 million euro weekly, they are evidentlycosting us money currently.
I find it fascinating to see threads on this board calling for social welfare cuts of 50% and so on, yet the minute someone suggests that maybe our devastated exchequer shouldn't be supporting thousands of foreigners on an income that dwarfs what they would receive for working in their own countries, it's excoriated.
I'm not looking to scapegoat anyone. This is all an inevitable consequence of the second Nice vote. You can't blame Eastern Europeans for initially coming here to make coffees for ten times what they'd get in professions at home, or secondly for staying on to claim the dole here when it's more than they'd get for working in their own countries.
I blame the system that permits such madness at a time when our exchequer is effectively bankrupt.

View

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is all an inevitable consequence of the second Maastricht vote.

What was the result in the first Maastricht vote again?

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I think since it's already been demonstrated that the dole bill alone amounts to just under 3 million euro weekly, they are evidentlycosting us money currently.
I find it fascinating to see threads on this board calling for social welfare cuts of 50% and so on, yet the minute someone suggests that maybe our devastated exchequer shouldn't be supporting thousands of foreigners on an income that dwarfs what they would receive for working in their own countries, it's excoriated.
I'm not looking to scapegoat anyone. This is all an inevitable consequence of the second Maastricht vote. You can't blame Eastern Europeans for initially coming here to make coffees for ten times what they'd get in professions at home, or secondly for staying on to claim the dole here when it's more than they'd get for working in their own countries.
I blame the system that permits such madness at a time when our exchequer is effectively bankrupt.

The problem is, you see, that if they've paid tax, then it's pretty irrelevant whether they're costing us money now. We didn't object to their taxes then, we can hardly object to them benefiting from them now. It would help if the government they were paying taxes to hadn't pissed the money up against the wall, of course, but that's hardly their fault.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem is, you see, that if they've paid tax, then it's pretty irrelevant whether they're costing us money now. We didn't object to their taxes then, we can hardly object to them benefiting from them now. It would help if the government they were paying taxes to hadn't pissed the money up against the wall, of course, but that's hardly their fault.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But as EU citizens, whether they paid tax or not is irrelevant to whether they receive benefits. It only defines which benefit they receive.
If a Polish or Estonian national arrived on a Ryanair flight tomorrow and bunked down with some pals in Dublin, he's entitled to open a claim the next day.
That, in many cases is preferable to seeking work in their own economy, where that national might not expect to bring home any more money by working there.

Cavehill Red

View wrote: »

What was the result in the first Maastricht vote again?

I do apologise. I meant Nice. It is hard to keep track of all these referenda the Irish people rejected and had their democratic voice rejected in.
Prior to Nice II, we were told by Willie O'Dea - "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."
He went on to say that 'at most' a few thousand might come. Of course, the final figure varies, but PPS numbers top well over half a million for recent years for EU accession nationals. Many of them have come and gone. Many of them worked here. Many Irish people remained unemployed at the height of the boom because cheap labour flooded into Ireland from these countries.
And today, when we cannot afford it, many of them are still here, claiming benefits that exceed what they would obtain by working in their native countries.
Like I said, I don't blame them for milking our system. I blame people like Willie O'Dea for making it possible, and I blame the system they created.

Amhran Nua

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem is, you see, that if they've paid tax, then it's pretty irrelevant whether they're costing us money now.

I think the specific complaint was about JSA, which is where previous contributions run out. Its silly to make this a question of economic bean counting in any case, this is more a question of social justice - plenty of Irish people might not have made contributions equivalent to their dole entitlements, but can an argument be made that we need to support citizens of other countries as well as those we are ostensibly meant to support, our own citizens?

This also raises the question of whether or not we "owe" anyone anything, one might say that they were compensated for their work by dint of being paid - how far does our society need to stretch as regards further responsibilities?

I'm not saying either yea or nay here, just playing devil's advocate.

Amhran Nua

Cavehill Red wrote: »

If a Polish or Estonian national arrived on a Ryanair flight tomorrow and bunked down with some pals in Dublin, he's entitled to open a claim the next day.

He can open the claim if he likes, but he won't get anything. You need to have habitual residency at minimum in Ireland.

Cavehill Red

Amhran Nua wrote: »

He can open the claim if he likes, but he won't get anything. You need to have habitual residency at minimum in Ireland.

Not necessarily true.
From your link -

Habitual residence cannot be determined simply by reference to a specific period of residence in a country.

If an Eastern European comes to join their family here, for example a woman joining her husband, she can certainly open a claim the next day.

Amhran Nua

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not necessarily true.
From your link -
If an Eastern European comes to join their family here, for example a woman joining her husband, she can certainly open a claim the next day.

Thats one criteria of quite a few. Besides which that's a different case to someone landing at Dublin airport and moving in with a few buddies, which is what you originally said.

Cavehill Red

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Thats one criteria of quite a few. Besides which that's a different case to someone landing at Dublin airport and moving in with a few buddies, which is what you originally said.

The criteria is that a person is deemed to have moved their primary place of residence and intends to set up a new life in their new one.
Now, in the current climate, I wouldn't hold out a tremendous amount of hope for anyone getting off the plane and bunking down with their mates having their claim accepted off the bat.
But that's no different to the Irish citizens moving back home from abroad and being told they're entitled to nothing, even though all their family and friends are already here.
Nevertheless, according to the legislation, it is feasible that a person who could demonstrate they had switched their primary residence to Ireland could open a claim the next day.

Amhran Nua

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Nevertheless, according to the legislation, it is feasible that a person who could demonstrate they had switched their primary residence to Ireland could open a claim the next day.

Feasible is a far cry from common. Its hard enough to claim benefits even if you are entitled to them.

View

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I do apologise. I meant Nice. It is hard to keep track of all these referenda the Irish people rejected and had their democratic voice rejected in.

That would be "rejected" as in: "The Irish people had their democratic voice "rejected' by the Irish people".

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Prior to Nice II, we were told by Willie O'Dea

Since when has Willie O'Dea been infallible?

Willie O'Dea made his prediction in the immediate aftermath of the Dot Com crash - at a time when much of the world did go into recession and we narrowly missed it.

As such, it is akin to predicting low immigration into Ireland over the next decade and getting it wrong. That is a predictions that most people would be fairly happy were it to prove wrong.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Many Irish people remained unemployed at the height of the boom because cheap labour flooded into Ireland from these countries.

Given that our labour costs rose from being among the cheapest in the EU to being among the most expensive that isn't really credible to put it mildly. Unless that is we come up with theories like all that "cheap labour" drove up the cost of labour.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And today, when we cannot afford it, many of them are still here, claiming benefits that exceed what they would obtain by working in their native countries.

And indeed many Irish people are claiming benefits when they could be potentially working in other EU states. Maybe we should just tell those also to get on their bikes to Austria & the Netherlands (the two member states with the lowest unemployment rates)?

Cavehill Red

View wrote: »

That would be "rejected" as in: "The Irish people had their democratic voice "rejected' by the Irish people".

That would be rejected as in 'the state refused to accept the democratic will of the Irish people in a referendum and held it again, offering assurances that later proved to be false.'
Remind me again, where are those jobs we voted Yes to Lisbon for?

View wrote: »

Since when has Willie O'Dea been infallible?

Willie wasn't making random market predictions. He was offering a governmental assurance that one of the claims of the No campaign was without foundation, and he was lying.

View wrote: »

Given that our labour costs rose from being among the cheapest in the EU to being among the most expensive that isn't really credible to put it mildly. Unless that is we come up with theories like all that "cheap labour" drove up the cost of labour.

If you import half a million people when there are not half a million surplus jobs, you end up with net unemployment. When you import multilingual graduates from Poland to make coffees and labour on building sites, you condemn those manual unskilled native workers who would otherwise have done that work to unemployment.

View wrote: »

And indeed many Irish people are claiming benefits when they could be potentially working in other EU states. Maybe we should just tell those also to get on their bikes to Austria & the Netherlands (the two member states with the lowest unemployment rates)?

Does not compute. You say there are native unemployed in those states? How would our unemployed hope to compete with the natives? Of course, some can and will. And it is certainly government policy, as it always has been, to export as many Irish people as possible.
This is an entirely different issue to that of offering benefits to foreign nationals that exceeds what they might expect to earn as workers in their own countries, which merely creates an incentive to import benefits seekers at a time when we can least afford to pay those benefits.

Amhran Nua

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Willie wasn't making random market predictions. He was offering a governmental assurance that one of the claims of the No campaign was without foundation, and he was lying.

And not just the bould Willie:

"There is no reason to believe... that large numbers of workers will wish to come"
[Dick Roche, Irish Times, Letters, 12.07.2002]

"Ireland will be in precisely the same position as all other member states on the question of free movement following any enlargement of the Community."
[Dick Roche - as reported in Irish Times, Sept. 2002]

"It is the view of the Irish government and a number of other governments that this idea that there is going to be a huge influx of immigrants is just not supported. The evidence is just not there for it. They are not going to flood to the west. The same rules are going to apply in all 15 states. There is no evidence to suggest that the people of the Czech Republic or Poland are less anxious to stay in their home as (sic) we are.
[Dick Roche, transcript of interview with The Irish Catholic, Govt. Buildings 19.09.2002]

"It is a deliberate misrepresentation to suggest that tens of thousands will suddenly descend en masse on Ireland."
[Pronsias De Rossa MEP, Irish Times, Letters, 20.08.2002]

"The expected trickle of immigration to Ireland will on balance benefit the Irish economy."
[Pronsias De Rossa MEP, Irish Times, Letters, 20.08.2002]

"I estimate that fewer than 2,000 [two thousand] will choose our distant shores each year."
[Pronsias De Rossa MEP, Irish Times, Letters 20.08.2002]

"There is no evidence there would be a problem with free movement of workers on accession."
[Bertie Ahern, Dail Eireann, 10.09.2002]

"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, 07.07.2002]

"Ireland is already benefiting from the skills and energy of workers from the applicant states, about 7,000 [seven thousand] 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, 07.07.2002]

"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."
[Willie O'Dea, Sunday Independent , Summer 2002]

/devil's advocate

Cavehill Red

Indeed. O'Dea is just the most memorable of the liars for me.
I recall Roche, a longstanding spoofer of the highest order, at it too.
But I'd forgotten those quotes from Biffo, Bertie and de Rossa. Many thanks for reminding me.

Amhran Nua

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Many thanks for reminding me.

Ah I recall seeing on p.ie at one stage, thank Google really. Questions need to be asked about the future, but it does no good to forget the past either, including yet another mistake by our illustrious national leader.

KindOfIrish

Please don't forget that Eastern Europeans came here only because IRISH GOVERNMENT opened Irish labour market in 2004. "Stupid" Germans, French, Dutch didn't do it. So benefits to Poles is just another price Ireland has to pay for "Celtic Tiger" euphoria.

Amhran Nua

KindOfIrish wrote: »

So benefits to Poles is just another price Ireland has to pay for "Celtic Tiger" euphoria.

Actually under EU rules, if a significant labour market distortion can be shown, freedom of labour movement legislation can be rowed back until at least 2011, I'm not entirely familiar with the wording. I don't see it being a long term issue mind you, if indeed it is an issue, which being the subject of this discussion, when Germany and Austria have to open their labour markets next year pressure should ease off considerably.

View

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That would be rejected as in 'the state refused to accept the democratic will of the Irish people in a referendum and held it again, offering assurances that later proved to be false.'

The democratic will of the people was as we saw a resounding Yes, once they spotted that the No vote was based on a blizzard of lies.

If the No side had a real case, there would have been a No the second time also.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Willie wasn't making random market predictions. He was offering a governmental assurance that one of the claims of the No campaign was without foundation, and he was lying.

Unless you are now trying to claim Willie can see the future (as well as being infallible), this is nonsense. What you are in effect claiming is that Willie O'Dea foresaw the economic boom (but presumably not the crash), knew what was going to happen and lied anyway.

Meanwhile, in the real world, most people - Willie included - make predictions (and give assurances) based on the immediate data to hand...

Cavehill Red wrote: »

If you import half a million people when there are not half a million surplus jobs, you end up with net unemployment. When you import multilingual graduates from Poland to make coffees and labour on building sites, you condemn those manual unskilled native workers who would otherwise have done that work to unemployment.

None of which addresses the issue of why our labour costs rose so dramatically. You do understand that a supply of cheap labour would keep the cost of labour steady or even reduce it, don't you?

As it is, you are in effect arguing that people on the dole were being undercut by "cheap labour" while the cost of labour went way up.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Does not compute. You say there are native unemployed in those states? How would our unemployed hope to compete with the natives?

You have just being arguing that immigrants kept Irish people on the dole at the height of the boom. Now you are wondering how Irish immigrants could compete with people in other member states?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is an entirely different issue to that of offering benefits to foreign nationals that exceeds what they might expect to earn as workers in their own countries, which merely creates an incentive to import benefits seekers at a time when we can least afford to pay those benefits.

No it is not. EU citizens have the right to (restricted) freedom to movement within the EU. They also have the right to claim benefits (again with restrictions) on the same terms as locals in all member states.

We agreed to the concepts. We had referenda on them in case you missed it. If people actually use their rights, they are fully entitled to do so as a result of decision that we made. Likewise, if Irish citizens go to other EU states to find work and/or claim benefits, that also is there right.

View

Amhran Nua wrote: »

And not just the bould Willie:

All dated from 2002 - the depths of the post Dot Com crash.

Unless you believe the politicians concerned can foresee the future and knowingly lied about it, their assurances were "best" predictions based on the available evidence which was: a) the economy was struggling, and, b) previous enlargements did not result in large scale immigration.

Amhran Nua

View wrote: »

All dated from 2002 - the depths of the post Dot Com crash.

Ireland ain't the silicon valley, the effects of the dot bomb were fairly muted here.

View wrote: »

Unless you believe the politicians concerned can foresee the future and knowingly lied about it, their assurances were "best" predictions based on the available evidence which was: a) the economy was struggling, and, b) previous enlargements did not result in large scale immigration.

I don't see any reference to them being liars there - idiots maybe, but not neccessarily liars. Although Willie has since been convicted of perjury, and Bertie can't remember where the money came from...

View

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ireland ain't the silicon valley, the effects of the dot bomb were fairly muted here.

Muted but not absent. The Dot Com crash was felt the world over.

Ireland is hugely dependent for investment, job hiring etc. on US firms. If they aren't hiring as a result of the US economy being in a bad way, they typically freeze world-wide hiring.

Also, remember that 2002 was shortly after the 9-11 attack which had a similar effect.

I personally know a B&B owner who had a wave of cancellations (from the US) in the wake of that. Part of her response was to tell the local egg man, she would be canceling her order, to which he replied "How do I tell the hens to stop laying eggs?"

That's a global economy - no one (and no hen) is immune to it.

Amhran Nua

View wrote: »

Muted but not absent. The Dot Com crash was felt the world over.

Quite right, but there was no significant Irish recession in 2002, and therefore cannot be blamed for pressure on politicians to accept Nice.

On your other points in response to Cavehill Red, you correctly point out that it is not historically accurate to say that accession state migration lead to mass unemployment here, with long term unemployment hovering around the 1% mark during the boom. However the situation has changed considerably, so the issue of whether or not Ireland can or should support migrant workers who share the problems of Irish workers becomes one to consider, in the context of social justice.

CCCP

Eastern Europeans cannot simply come here and claim job-seekers, it doesn't work like that.

Also why does the OP single out Eastern Europeans???? there are other foreigners here, other EU nationality's such as french or Spanish, Should they be treated differently?? Has the OP got a problem with Eastern Europeans?

Scofflaw

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Quite right, but there was no significant Irish recession in 2002, and therefore cannot be blamed for pressure on politicians to accept Nice.

On your other points in response to Cavehill Red, you correctly point out that it is not historically accurate to say that accession state migration lead to mass unemployment here, with long term unemployment hovering around the 1% mark during the boom. However the situation has changed considerably, so the issue of whether or not Ireland can or should support migrant workers who share the problems of Irish workers becomes one to consider, in the context of social justice.

Social justice to whom, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

View wrote: »

The democratic will of the people was as we saw a resounding Yes, once they spotted that the No vote was based on a blizzard of lies.

Actually, they were proven to be correct. We've already covered the great 'no mass immigration' lie of Nice II. Now remind me, where are the jobs we were promised if we voted yes to Lisbon II?
For sure there were lies in both campaigns. It's very evident that it was the Yes side lying both times.

View wrote: »

Unless you are now trying to claim Willie can see the future (as well as being infallible), this is nonsense. What you are in effect claiming is that Willie O'Dea foresaw the economic boom (but presumably not the crash), knew what was going to happen and lied anyway.

He knew that only Ireland and two other Western European countries intended to open their borders to hundreds of millions of people. Yet he claimed that none of them would come here. That's either a lie (nothing new there - he has been convicted in court for lying) or profoundly stupid. And even O'Dea isn't that thick.

View wrote: »

None of which addresses the issue of why our labour costs rose so dramatically. You do understand that a supply of cheap labour would keep the cost of labour steady or even reduce it, don't you?

And the cost of labour on building sites only went up because of the introduction of things like safepass (manual wages didn't improve) and nor, as far as I'm aware, did the cost of hiring people to till-jockey, which is what I saw most Eastern European immigrants doing during the boom.

View wrote: »

You have just being arguing that immigrants kept Irish people on the dole at the height of the boom. Now you are wondering how Irish immigrants could compete with people in other member states?

Multilingual college graduates from Eastern Europe came here to compete with the local unqualified lumpenproles for minimum wage work, because it still offered much more income than professional jobs did in their native countries.
Monolingual (setting aside the Gaeilge nonsense) Irish unemployed who in many cases have no qualifications and have not worked for some time, are unlikely to be able to supercede the native unemployed of Holland in quite the same way, I suspect.

View wrote: »

No it is not. EU citizens have the right to (restricted) freedom to movement within the EU. They also have the right to claim benefits (again with restrictions) on the same terms as locals in all member states.

And we cannot afford to pay it. This is something which will have to be addressed.

View wrote: »

We agreed to the concepts. We had referenda on them in case you missed it. If people actually use their rights, they are fully entitled to do so as a result of decision that we made. Likewise, if Irish citizens go to other EU states to find work and/or claim benefits, that also is there right.

It depends on which referenda results you prefer. Why can't we hold a best out of three on Lisbon or Nice?
I wonder what the results would be today. I suspect people mightn't buy the lies this time around. "Vote Yes for Jobs?" How amusing.

Cavehill Red

CCCP wrote: »

Eastern Europeans cannot simply come here and claim job-seekers, it doesn't work like that.

Also why does the OP single out Eastern Europeans???? there are other foreigners here, other EU nationality's such as french or Spanish, Should they be treated differently?? Has the OP got a problem with Eastern Europeans?

I think the fact that there are ten times as many accession state citizens signing on as there are from the EU 13 (15-Ireland and Britain) is what concerns him.
3,900 Western Europeans aren't putting much dent in our coffers compared to 40,000 Eastern Europeans. It's simply a matter of numbers. We didn't need to open our market to them, we didn't have to have mass immigration, and now we oughtn't be paying them more money to be on the dole here than they would get working in their own countries.

johnjoebreen

They're also making it harder for Irish people to get jobs

strandroad

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Nevertheless, according to the legislation, it is feasible that a person who could demonstrate they had switched their primary residence to Ireland could open a claim the next day.

Open a claim - probably. But no more than that. My sister's JSA application was refused when she was made redundant last year, and she'd been here for a year and a half, working all the time.

namelessweirdo

EU citizens are not entitled to it straight away, dont they have to work here two years first? i think all EU citizens do. well thats what my French ex said when he lost his job. He had been working here 14 months and wasnt entitled to any benefits. I think most Eastern Europeans work really hard and want to work. And if they have been living and working here for a few years and are suddenly unemployed and looking for work then maybe they should be entitled to it. If i was living in another EU country and was suddenly made redundant, I would want to claim benefits if I needed too.

johnnyskeleton

johnjoebreen wrote: »

Should Europeans from the 10 2004 EU Accession States living in Ireland be entitled to Job Seekers Allowance?

Job Seekers Allowance is the social welfare one gets when you're PRSI tax credits run out.

I feel paying JSA to foreigners is a burden on the state.

You've answered your own question in a sense. No, they should not get it if they never worked here, but yes, if they worked here and obtained sufficient stamp to get JSB and then run out, provided they are lawfully in the state they are just as entitled to JSA as any Irish person.

After all, we can't claim the benefits of the EU with the one hand but deny the cost of it with the other.

johnjoebreen wrote: »

In a lot of nations, US, UAE, Oz the Irish aren't entitled to a penny of a social welfare, and they shouldn't be entitled.

Yes, but in other EU countries they are. That is the difference.

johnjoebreen wrote: »

I just feel Ireland along with the UK have been disproportionately hit with this burden since giving Eastern Europeans access to our Labour markets in 2004.

Adding vastly to the labour supply, especially to the low-skilled labour group, has driven down wages and conditions in Ireland and UK making it harder for the indigenous population.

Please explain to me how this has affected pay and conditions for the low skilled again, given that minimum wage has more than doubled in the 10 years in which more Eastern Europeans came here?

johnjoebreen wrote: »

I find that the Law Library or civil servant types who's jobs are not impacted by immigration but benefit from immigration when purchasing their endless cups of milky coffee, are quick to denounced you as a racist/xenophobe if you raise genuine concerns about the impact of immigration on the labour markets.
Its an issue few in this country can't have a proper debate about.

I don't think you're a xenophone or racist, I just think you don't understand or don't believe in free market economics.

fontanalis

namelessweirdo wrote: »

EU citizens are not entitled to it straight away, dont they have to work here two years first? i think all EU citizens do. well thats what my French ex said when he lost his job. He had been working here 14 months and wasnt entitled to any benefits. I think most Eastern Europeans work really hard and want to work. And if they have been living and working here for a few years and are suddenly unemployed and looking for work then maybe they should be entitled to it. If i was living in another EU country and was suddenly made redundant, I would want to claim benefits if I needed too.

Shh, you can't scapegoat foreigners with facts like that!

Nodin

fontanalis wrote: »

Shh, you can't scapegoat foreigners with facts like that!

...which would adversely affect the surge in the pitchfork and burning torch market.