Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

UN Migration Pact Ireland's Position?

  • 24-11-2018 4:15pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,785 ✭✭✭✭


    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.


«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,785 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 40,099 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,785 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Don't ask people to google your argument please.

    I was referring to the link.....


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 40,099 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,710 ✭✭✭weisses


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,785 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,710 ✭✭✭weisses


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

    What culture ? ...Christian values ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    weisses wrote: »
    What culture ? ...Christian values ?

    main-qimg-8a49bc7f607559343ab50f603c8a93e0-c.jpeg
    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭backspin.


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


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 40,099 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Nonsense post deleted. Serious discussion only please.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    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?


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    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)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭Gravelly


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭Gravelly


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭Gravelly


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    main-qimg-8a49bc7f607559343ab50f603c8a93e0-c.jpeg
    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.



    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.

    This argument certainly carries significant weight compounded with the vast evidence you have provided that immigrants and/or immigration-related issues are the root cause of crime in Ireland and/or other EU countries.

    Oh... wait.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭Gravelly



    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.

    When the first point is utterly ridiculous, it rather discourages the reader from investigating further. I did on this post of yours, and, as I suspected, it didn't get any better.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Gravelly wrote: »
    You seem to be angry and idiotic in most of your posts.

    I have 17,500+ posts... a significant percentage of which are in Legal Discussion. I'm not sure what qualifies you to opine that these posts are "idiotic".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭Gravelly


    I have 17,500+ posts... a significant percentage of which are in Legal Discussion. I'm not sure what qualifies you to opine that these posts are "idiotic".

    I was extrapolating from the few I read. Since 100% of those are idiotic, I think it's a fair assumption to make that you haven't suddenly degraded from being a genius previously.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Gravelly wrote: »
    When the first point is utterly ridiculous, it rather discourages the reader from investigating further. I did on this post of yours, and, as I suspected, it didn't get any better.
    Ok. I'll explain this to you as if someone were explaining it to me (an obvious idiot).

    UNGC resolutions (and other instruments) although non-binding act as a sort of international forum, representing international consensus. These agreements have a significant impact politically as well as on a national scale in both legislation and customary law. So, the point of the international community coming together to show support (albeit symbolically) against the rise of the far-right extremist general anti-immigrant views is both symbolically important, but also assists in influencing national legislation.
    Gravelly wrote: »
    I was extrapolating from the few I read. Since 100% of those are idiotic

    Such as...
    I think it's a fair assumption to make that you haven't suddenly degraded from being a genius previously.
    I wouldn't say I was a "genius" before, but certainly specialisation in a specific area of law in my career has definitely degraded my general knowledge in other areas. Part of getting older I guess...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 780 ✭✭✭no.8


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


    Why? Is it because they have a backbone? Or is it for historical reasons? If you look back you'd be understanding as to why the Poles distrust uncontrolled influx or outsiders


  • Registered Users Posts: 780 ✭✭✭no.8


    weisses wrote:
    What culture ? ...Christian values ?


    What culture???? How ignorant. Go there to both of these countries and educate yourself will you! Yes a part of the culture is based on Christian values but so what. That's their history, that's engrained. How they survived I don't know.
    I'm for immigration as it's how the human race survived. However it has to be at a controlled level imho... And acceptance varies so respect that. A mass influx of foreign bodies is bad in every situation (see the history of South America, Australia etc.)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    no.8 wrote: »
    Why? Is it because they have a backbone? Or is it for historical reasons? If you look back you'd be understanding as to why the Poles distrust uncontrolled influx or outsiders

    Morawiecki and his Law and Justice party are far right... as I said, this is a symbolic dig at the far right by the UN as well as an influential policy signal. Almost zero surprise that this has been jumped on by the far right pundits (and posters) as a major issue, when in reality it's just a signal test. Even if they agreed to sign it, there would be no impact on these countries.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    no.8 wrote: »
    However it has to be at a controlled level imho... And acceptance varies so respect that. A mass influx of foreign bodies is bad in every situation (see the history of South America, Australia etc.)

    What part of the pact allows for uncontrolled levels of immigration?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 40,099 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Gravelly wrote: »
    When the first point is utterly ridiculous, it rather discourages the reader from investigating further. I did on this post of yours, and, as I suspected, it didn't get any better.
    I have 17,500+ posts... a significant percentage of which are in Legal Discussion. I'm not sure what qualifies you to opine that these posts are "idiotic".
    Gravelly wrote: »
    I was extrapolating from the few I read. Since 100% of those are idiotic, I think it's a fair assumption to make that you haven't suddenly degraded from being a genius previously.
    no.8 wrote: »
    How ignorant.

    Enough of the sniping please.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    no.8 wrote: »
    What culture???? How ignorant. Go there to both of these countries and educate yourself will you! Yes a part of the culture is based on Christian values but so what. That's their history, that's engrained. How they survived I don't know.
    I'm not a religious person, but I did go to Roman Catholic schools. What I took as the core tenet of "Christian values", as you put it, and one that is entirely admirable, is that one should show compassion for others, especially those who are less fortunate than themsleves, especially "outsiders".

    Supporters of the regimes in Poland, Hungary and Italy, and Russia and the US for that matter, love to trumpet this line about them supposedly having "Christian values".

    Yet their policies are based on the vilification of the less fortunate and "outsiders".

    How is this consistent with so called "Christian values"?

    What are these "Christian values" they hold?

    On any reasonable reading of the situation, politics which claims to be based on the so called "upholding of Christian values" is nothing more than code for the legitimisation of bigotry, vilification and ultimately genocide - and the polar opposite of genuine "Christian values" of compassion (values which in reality are universal and in no way confined to Chrstianity).

    Politics which claims to be "pro-Christian values" is in fact anti-Christian values.

    And that's pretty much all it has ever been, going back thousands of years.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    demfad wrote: »
    On the contrary Poland and and particularly Hungary are puppet Governments of the Kremlin. Russia is a State more or less controlled by a mixture of USSR KGB, oligarchs and criminals. If you think any State under the influence of Russia is safe or in a good place then you are naive or you believe in Fascism.

    i) Widespread cold blooded murder of political opponents.
    ii) Imprisonment of political opponents.
    iii) Rigged "elections".
    iv) Destruction of an independent judiciary.
    v) Destruction of a free press in favour of reality-denying "official" state propaganda.
    vi) Destruction of academic independence.
    vii) Illegal and brutal occupations of other countries.
    viii) Widespread interference in the democratic processes of other countries.
    ix) Corruption and criminality on an industrial scale.

    These are now, apparently, "Christian values".

    <SNIP>


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Mod Note

    I've deleted one post and edited another. Please stick to the facts. Please don't post conspiracy theories.

    If you think people are trolls, Russian or otherwise, please report those posts and we'll look at them. Don't call it out on thread as it just drags the thread off topic.

    Thanks


  • Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Chaos Marine


    I'm against it. National sovereignty is important. Ireland was under the yoke of British rule for almost a thousand years. The idea of giving up our right to self govern to the EU makes my blood run cold.

    Ever since the EU forced the Irish government at the time to undergo a second vote for The Lisborn Treaty I've been skeptical of the EU. Then you have the EU trying to exert political pressure on Ireland to do away with the tax concessions that brings businesses into Ireland because it's "unfair" to the other states. The censorship articles that they're trying to push to how they're treating the UK as it attempts to leave after a lawful election smacks of fascism. Keep in mind that a woman had her human right of free speech taken away because she said Muhammed was a paedophile by the EU Human Rights Tribunal and shortly enough, the EU is trying to make criticizing migrants a hate crime.

    I have absolutely no problem with the EU as a trading bloc only. I'd be more than happy with the EU if that was all it was but I don't want Ireland to be subjected to being forced, either militarily or politically into Guy Verhofstadt's "Empire of the good".

    Keep in mind, when the British leave the EU, if Macron, Verhofstadt and Merkel's European Army becomes reality, who's going to foot the bill? How can we guarantee it's not going to be deployed in European nations just because?

    Mass or unchecked immigration is not something Ireland should be considering when we have a rampant homeless and housing crisis because what else happens when you introduce masses of low or unskilled labour? Wages go down as the volume of workers increase. This isn't a conspiracy or fear mongering, this is what happens. More Irish people being unable to afford rent or mortgage payments and more homeless who won't have the benefit of a "progressive" government footing their food and housing bills.

    To those who are, in this threat, criticizing Poland and Hungry? Check out the number of terrorist attacks in those countries compared to those in Germany and France.

    I'm not against migration either. Just unchecked or mass migration like the EU is proposing. We need to know who is coming into our country, if they're really adults or children as I'm not entirely comfortable with seeing pictures from some kid's phone of an adult male wearing a school uniform trying to pass themselves off as a teenager coming from Irish students.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 378 ✭✭Redneck Culchie


    There is a protest against Ireland signing the UN Migration Pact without any debate, protest is outside the Dail tomorrow 6/6.30pm. Organised by Irexit party but all those who oppose the signing of the UN Migration Pact are welcome to attend. Expecting a decent crowd hopefully. It won't be the usual PBP types at it either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    I'm against it. National sovereignty is important. Ireland was under the yoke of British rule for almost a thousand years. The idea of giving up our right to self govern to the EU makes my blood run cold.

    Ever since the EU forced the Irish government at the time to undergo a second vote for The Lisborn Treaty I've been skeptical of the EU. Then you have the EU trying to exert political pressure on Ireland to do away with the tax concessions that brings businesses into Ireland because it's "unfair" to the other states. The censorship articles that they're trying to push to how they're treating the UK as it attempts to leave after a lawful election smacks of fascism. Keep in mind that a woman had her human right of free speech taken away because she said Muhammed was a paedophile by the EU Human Rights Tribunal and shortly enough, the EU is trying to make criticizing migrants a hate crime.

    I have absolutely no problem with the EU as a trading bloc only. I'd be more than happy with the EU if that was all it was but I don't want Ireland to be subjected to being forced, either militarily or politically into Guy Verhofstadt's "Empire of the good".

    Keep in mind, when the British leave the EU, if Macron, Verhofstadt and Merkel's European Army becomes reality, who's going to foot the bill? How can we guarantee it's not going to be deployed in European nations just because?

    Mass or unchecked immigration is not something Ireland should be considering when we have a rampant homeless and housing crisis because what else happens when you introduce masses of low or unskilled labour? Wages go down as the volume of workers increase. This isn't a conspiracy or fear mongering, this is what happens. More Irish people being unable to afford rent or mortgage payments and more homeless who won't have the benefit of a "progressive" government footing their food and housing bills.

    To those who are, in this threat criticizing Poland and Hungry? Check out the number of terrorist attacks in those countries compared to those in Germany and France.

    I'm not against migration either. Just unchecked or mass migration like the EU is proposing. We need to know who is coming into our country, if they're really adults or children as I'm not entirely comfortable with seeing pictures from some kid's phone of an adult male wearing a school uniform trying to pass themselves off as a teenager coming from Irish students.
    Ireland has national sovereignty. It has used that sovereignty to enter into agreements re internal migration as part of the EU.

    Ireland has complete national sovereignty over migration from outside the EU. Why are you implying it doesn't, when you know it has?

    Why are you comparing the EU to the British empire, when any cursory reading of the situation could tell you the two things are entirely different, and that far from being an "empire", the EU is the exact opposite of such?

    Do you support free movement within the EU?

    If you don't, why not just come straight out and say you're in favour of Ireland leaving the EU, given that that would be the logical upshot of being against free movement?

    If there is a causation effect between in-migration and wages going down, surely then, there should be a causation effect between out-migration and wages going up?

    Surely then the USA, the world's greatest ever experiment in large scale in-migration, would thus prove that wages go down when there is large scale in-migration?

    Surely the countries with significant out-migration would thus see the biggest rise in wages? How did that ever work out for Ireland?

    Do you support internal migration within countries? I mean, Dublin has changed beyond all recognition in the last 100 years? Why do you think that is?

    The main reason is because massive numbers of people have migrated to it - the vast majority from other parts of Ireland. In your language, that's "mass migration". It doesn't matter whether somebody moves to Dublin from Letterkenny or Lahore, they're still a migrant.

    Was this a good thing or a bad thing for Dublin?

    How about Galway, which has grown massively in recent years?

    Is the fact that massive numbers of Dubs have moved to Navan, Drogheda and Portlaoise a good thing for those towns?

    They're "outsiders", they have migrated on a large scale to a different place.

    How about pretty much every major city in the world, which all grew because of massive in-migration from other parts of whatever country they're in?

    Should Britain have abolished the Common Travel Area during the Troubles?

    The Common Travel Area enabled/enables free movement for residency purposes from Ireland to the UK and vice versa.

    From the 1970s to the 1990s, Irish people carried out large numbers of terrorist attacks in Britain. Surely then, by the same rationale that you use above, Irish people should have been stopped from moving to Britain? Yes?

    On the flipside of that, if one was to be paranoid enough, couldn't one have argued back then - hell, you could argue it now - that if enough British people moved here as a result of free movement, we could have ended up rejoining the UK? Would that have been a legitimate reason to oppose the Common Travel Area?

    I'm just trying to get your angle on all these questions, because it appears to me you're just one more poster trying to claim that racism has nothing to do with your views when it appears bleedin' obvious that it has everything to do with it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    There is a protest against Ireland signing the UN Migration Pact without any debate, protest is outside the Dail tomorrow 6/6.30pm. Organised by Irexit party but all those who oppose the signing of the UN Migration Pact are welcome to attend. Expecting a decent crowd hopefully. It won't be the usual PBP types at it either.

    Let me guess, it'll be attended by the sort of people who think Gemma O'Doherty is the font of all knowledge?

    Or that Hermann Kelly is a serious political figure and not a total laughing stock?

    I'll take the "People Before Profit types" over them any day, thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    There is a protest against Ireland signing the UN Migration Pact without any debate, protest is outside the Dail tomorrow 6/6.30pm. Organised by Irexit party but all those who oppose the signing of the UN Migration Pact are welcome to attend. Expecting a decent crowd hopefully. It won't be the usual PBP types at it either.


    Interesting way for the Irexit crowd to fill out the numbers. No doubt the crowd pictures will be used in future propaganda for Irexit.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    Ireland has national sovereignty. It has used that sovereignty to enter into agreements re internal migration as part of the EU.

    Ireland has complete national sovereignty over migration from outside the EU. Why are you implying it doesn't, when you know it has?

    Why are you comparing the EU to the British empire, when any cursory reading of the situation could tell you the two things are entirely different, and that far from being an "empire", the EU is the exact opposite of such?

    Do you support free movement within the EU?

    If you don't, why not just come straight out and say you're in favour of Ireland leaving the EU, given that that would be the logical upshot of being against free movement?

    If there is a causation effect between in-migration and wages going down, surely then, there should be a causation effect between out-migration and wages going up?

    Surely then the USA, the world's greatest ever experiment in large scale in-migration, would thus prove that wages go down when there is large scale in-migration?

    Surely the countries with significant out-migration would thus see the biggest rise in wages? How did that ever work out for Ireland?

    Do you support internal migration within countries? I mean, Dublin has changed beyond all recognition in the last 100 years? Why do you think that is?

    The main reason is because massive numbers of people have migrated to it - the vast majority from other parts of Ireland. In your language, that's "mass migration". It doesn't matter whether somebody moves to Dublin from Letterkenny or Lahore, they're still a migrant.

    Was this a good thing or a bad thing for Dublin?

    How about Galway, which has grown massively in recent years?

    Is the fact that massive numbers of Dubs have moved to Navan, Drogheda and Portlaoise a good thing for those towns?

    They're "outsiders", they have migrated on a large scale to a different place.

    How about pretty much every major city in the world, which all grew because of massive in-migration from other parts of whatever country they're in?

    Should Britain have abolished the Common Travel Area during the Troubles?

    The Common Travel Area enabled/enables free movement for residency purposes from Ireland to the UK and vice versa.

    From the 1970s to the 1990s, Irish people carried out large numbers of terrorist attacks in Britain. Surely then, by the same rationale that you use above, Irish people should have been stopped from moving to Britain? Yes?

    On the flipside of that, if one was to be paranoid enough, couldn't one have argued back then - hell, you could argue it now - that if enough British people moved here as a result of free movement, we could have ended up rejoining the UK? Would that have been a legitimate reason to oppose the Common Travel Area?

    I'm just trying to get your angle on all these questions, because it appears to me you're just one more poster trying to claim that racism has nothing to do with your views when it appears bleedin' obvious that it has everything to do with it.

    And this has absolutely nothing to do with the EU...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    There is a protest against Ireland signing the UN Migration Pact without any debate,
    Who says there won't be a debate in the Oireachtas before this is signed?
    protest is outside the Dail tomorrow 6/6.30pm. Organised by Irexit party but all those who oppose the signing of the UN Migration Pact are welcome to attend. Expecting a decent crowd hopefully. It won't be the usual PBP types at it either.

    Hard pass.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement