nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

UN Migration Pact Ireland's Position?

Jamie2k9

Simple question whats our position on this do we plan to sign it.

I am going to assume we will sign it but I am totally opposed to it and clearly many counties.

Sorry if in wrong area.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

LeinsterDub

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Simple question whats our position on this do we plan to sign it.

I am going to assume we will sign it but I am totally opposed to it and clearly many counties.

Sorry if in wrong area.

Can you provide a link to it and perhaps outline your issues with it?

Jamie2k9

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Can you provide a link to it and perhaps outline your issues with it?

Google it and you will see the proposal and then question why so many countries are rejecting it.

ancapailldorcha

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Google it and you will see the proposal and then question why so many countries are rejecting it.

Don't ask people to google your argument please.

Jamie2k9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Don't ask people to google your argument please.

I was referring to the link.....

ancapailldorcha

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I was referring to the link.....

It's not unreasonable for the OP to provide a link to what they started the thread to discuss. Again, no more "Google it" responses. Please do not dispute mod warnings on thread.

Eric Cartman

We absolutely should not be signing this , poland and hungary have already objected , Im sure it also violates immigration legislation in many countries.

weisses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

We absolutely should not be signing this , poland and hungary have already objected , Im sure it also violates immigration legislation in many countries.

Poland and Hungary will reject anything and anyone that inst Caucasian ...Cannot take them seriously at this stage

Jamie2k9

Australia, US, Poland, Croatia, Israel, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Switzerland, Czech Republic and Bulgaria have all rejected. Germany is under pressure to reject but of course the Irish media is all quiet on the issue which is why nobody can find out our Government's position on it.

You can find the deal on http://www.un.org/en/index.html

Eric Cartman

weisses wrote: »

Poland and Hungary will reject anything and anyone that inst Caucasian ...Cannot take them seriously at this stage

Theyve preserved their culture and kept their nations safe , it seems to be working for them

Eric Cartman

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Australia, US, Poland, Croatia, Israel, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Switzerland, Czech Republic and Bulgaria have all rejected. Germany is under pressure to reject but of course the Irish media is all quiet on the issue which is why nobody can find out our Government's position on it.

You can find the deal on http://www.un.org/en/index.html

Knowing leo he'll probably just accept without even lettting us know till its over

weisses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Theyve preserved their culture and kept their nations safe , it seems to be working for them

What culture ? ...Christian values ?

WinnyThePoo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

weisses wrote: »

Poland and Hungary will reject anything and anyone that inst Caucasian ...Cannot take them seriously at this stage

Theyve preserved their culture and kept their nations safe , it seems to be working for them

Poland and Hungary have 0% crime? These must surely be utopias. Anti pluralist populists must really be doing a good job.

Eric Cartman

weisses wrote: »

What culture ? ...Christian values ?

Attachment not found.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

Poland has some of the lowest rates of rape, robbery, homicide etc.. in the world, not just the EU. Its identified as one of the least likely places for a terrorist attack to occur. Despite low wages and a not free for all welfare state, burglaries remain low.
https://www.politico.eu/article/politics-nationalism-and-religion-explain-why-poland-doesnt-want-refugees/

Poland wants to keep its culture and society that it has cultivated, while being quite religious and it reminds us of times gone by here, the Catholic Church does not have the legislative grip that it had here.

Poland only stands to lose by loosening its immigration rules or taking migrants, there is no upside for them.

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Poland and Hungary have 0% crime? These must surely be utopias. Anti pluralist populists must really be doing a good job.

I never said they had 0% crime , saying they are relatively safe does not mean 0 crimes and you know this, you're just throwing this crap around.

backspin.

I have no doubt we will sign this once Germany does. I hope we don't though.

ancapailldorcha

Nonsense post deleted. Serious discussion only please.

Nermal

weisses wrote: »

What culture ? ...Christian values ?

Presented: the twisted, empty mind of the degenerate, that when considering a nation with a history spanning a thousand years can only emit a slack-jawed 'what culture?'. They spent a lot of blood booting the Ottoman out once. It's not surprising they won't be browbeat into letting him return.

hill16bhoy

Nermal wrote: »

Presented: the twisted, empty mind of the degenerate, that when considering a nation with a history spanning a thousand years can only emit a slack-jawed 'what culture?'. They spent a lot of blood booting the Ottoman out once. It's not surprising they won't be browbeat into letting him return.

You'll have to expand on what you mean by "the Ottoman", but one can presume your explanation will be full of the usual old tropes peddled by all white supremacists.

Poland as a nation state is only 100 years old and only exists in its present form since 1945. In that time many Poles collaborated with the Nazis to exterminate an entire people, numbering around three and half million, and an entire culture, from within its borders. Jews now number in the single thousands in Poland.

Poland did not benefit one iota from any of that, it suffered massively.

And what it's also suffering from is the crypto-fascist regime currently in place there.

We "spent a lot of blood" "booting out" British rule.

At the last count, we have have 277,000 British-born people living in this state.

They are more than welcome here, as are immigrants from all other backgrounds.

We are a migrant people and Ireland and Irish people have benefitted massively from both in and out migration.

Long may that continue.

Stephen15

Italy to reject this aswell and rightly so. "The UN have no business interfering in countries national borders" couldn't be better put by Salvini who is probably Europe's best sense talking politician at the moment. We need more politicians like him and Orban in Ireland and across Europe.

Captain Obvious

Eric Cartman wrote: »

We absolutely should not be signing this , poland and hungary have already objected , Im sure it also violates immigration legislation in many countries.

How can it violate immigration law when it's non-binding?

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Hi folks, don't forget the charter rule about posting links and videos:

Please remember that we are not a blog, a news feed nor an announcement forum - if you are not willing to discuss what you post, then please don't post it.

When posting or linking to a video please provide a summary of the content as not everybody has access to video sites or the time to view them.

Long story short, you need to make your own arguments, not just post up other people's.

Captain Obvious

blindjustice wrote: »

Whats the point in it if its non binding?

Here are two opposing views:

https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1068588896555024384

I tend to think it would be wise to err on the side on caution and not sign, its non-binding so why bother signing? That argument works both ways.

Here is the Tanaiste on the matter:

He is clearly pro migration and the pact. What I find interesting is this bit:

That can be interpreted as silencing debate on the matter because it 'pulls us down a dangerous direction'. Actually silencing people pulls democracy down a dangerous direction.

It's just agreed upon targets. Like the Paris Climate Agreement.

When you say are on the side of caution, what are you being cautious about?

As to letting the politics of immigration take over, that's how the US got stuck with an idiot president and the UK is self destructing with Brexit. By letting immigration take over every debate, as quite a few here try to do regularly.

FreudianSlippers

Eric Cartman wrote: »

We absolutely should not be signing this , poland and hungary have already objected , Im sure it also violates immigration legislation in many countries.

I'm "sure" it doesn't.

(I haven't looked in the slightest, but fairly positive you haven't either)

Gravelly

Out of curiosity, if this is non-binding, doesn't change our laws, and makes no difference as some posters seem to allude, then why do we need to sign it at all?

FreudianSlippers

Gravelly wrote: »

Out of curiosity, if this is non-binding, doesn't change our laws, and makes no difference as some posters seem to allude, then why do we need to sign it at all?

1) To annoy the far right and to get them to identify themselves on the public stage (see: Twitter, this thread, etc.).
2) To outline a framework as to how international governments might work together in the future to ensure that countries like Ireland aren't engaging in barbaric practices like direct provision.

Gravelly

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1) To annoy the far right and to get them to identify themselves on the public stage.
2) To outline a framework as to how international governments might work together in the future to ensure that countries like Ireland aren't engaging in barbaric practices like direct provision.

You believe we should sign UN charters in order to "annoy the far right"

What does that make you I wonder?

FreudianSlippers

Gravelly wrote: »

You believe we should sign UN charters in order to "annoy the far right"

You should probably keep reading that past point 1.

What does that make you I wonder?

I'm not sure, why don't you tell me... Smarter than you?

Gravelly

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You should probably keep reading that past point 1.

I'm not sure, why don't you tell me... Smarter than you?

I very much doubt it. You seem to be angry and idiotic in most of your posts.

FreudianSlippers

Gravelly wrote: »

I very much doubt it. You seem to be angry and idiotic in most of your posts.

Very nice. I'm not angry at all by the way (I'm not even sure what would give you that impression tbh). I'm very happy to understand the purpose and scope of UN resolutions and other instruments such as this.

Gravelly

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Very nice. I'm not angry at all by the way (I'm not even sure what would give you that impression tbh). I'm very happy to understand the purpose and scope of UN resolutions and other instruments such as this.

The fact that you replied to a simple question with idiocy and ad hominem gives one the impression you are an angry little person. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding idiocy.

FreudianSlippers

Gravelly wrote: »

The fact that you replied to a simple question with idiocy and ad hominem gives one the impression you are an angry little person. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding idiocy.

1) Following your logic:

First "ad hominem" (by your apparent standards)

Gravelly wrote: »

What does that make you I wonder?

2) I'm not a little person, but I also have no prejudice against little people - it's unfortunate that you seem to have this view.

3) Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt regarding idiocy. I'm not entirely sure what that means, being an "idiot" and all, but... cool.

4) I answered your question if you bothered to read past the first point in my post. Unfortunately, you won't see this answer if you continue previous form of not reading past the first point. Ironic.