Why are the government intent on forcing through the EU Migration Pact?

Absolutely rubbish , simple economics no houses ,prices stay up.

How are things in the land of clocks ,with all your smarts have you not found the boards webpage over there or do they not communicate like us.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2024/0627/1456965-oscar-traynor-coolock/

The Tánaiste has defended the pricing of homes on the Oscar Traynor Road in Coolock, Dublin amid rowdy scenes in the Dáil.

The affordable homes scheme will see three-bed houses priced between €400,000 and €475,000.

@Jim2007

Do you support Simon Harris and Fine Gael here?

So basically they are pricing the young people out of our country.

Do they want to change the race of our country or what are they at.

It looks to me like our government have been brainwashed or given money or a drug that controls them.

They are full of lies and deceit.

I wouldn't be that sure about what banks will or will not do.

Ireland is, I believe, the only country in the Eurozone where consumers just cannot get Tracker Mortgages because our banks just refuse to offer them (ie they effectively operate an "unofficial" cartel system while the "regulator" looks the other way). The result is consumers here paying a premium to subsidise our banks profit margins.

As I understand it, it's a combination of measures. Some of them would be in the form of directives/regulations that could be adopted by a qualified majority of member states and then be binding on all, but others couldn't be imposed; each member state would have to agree to implement them in their domestic law or policy. And it was an integrated package; just imposing the mandatory bits on a state that didn't sign up to the voluntary bits wouldn't have acheived the desired policy outcome. Hence the need for a "Pact" by which, essentially, all the member states agree to commit to the voluntary bits.

There are other pacts that work the same way - the EU Climate Pact; the EU Stabiity Pact.

The same result could be acheived by a treaty amendment, to give the EU competence to legislation on migration, or asylum, or climate, or fiscal stability, or whatever. But doing it this way gives member states more control — if you give the EU competence, it's permanent, and the EU can decide later how it wants to exercise that competence, and you're stuck with the decision. But when a pact is used specific measures get proposed and member states decide to accept them (or not). The EU doesn't have competence to amend or replace those measures later on.

It's not doing much to quell the rise of replacement conspiracy theories with how much current European governments appear to be refusing to read the public mood.

One thing which people are ignoring is that the birth rate throughout Europe is so low that there may not be enough of a working population to support the elderly through public pensions and to staff a lot of entry level positions. Peter Zeihan has given an alarming analysis that just to keep its economy running, the amount of inward immigration Germany needs would mean that there won't be a Germany as we know it in 50 years.

I don't think people can have it all both ways. If people in Europe want less immigration, more people will have to start having families and giving less time to travelling or exploring different career options or any of the other things that the free time of not having a family would afford them, but I don't think that's a message anyone really wants to hear. It certainly wouldn't be a popular thing for a politician to come out and say.

A lot of people just don't want to be lumbered with children and the social expectation/contract that most people would get married and have a couple of kids at least has pretty much vanished. I certainly cannot blame any one individual for preferring to have a career over a family or waiting until later to have maybe only one child, but the macro societal effect of that would be an aging population that doesn't have enough of a younger generation to support them. If you want to get into the chicken and the egg of it, it was certainly more life options for both sexes that came before this idea of the government nefariously working against the ability to have a family and that a lot of people willingly forewent that option.

@Sunjava

We are actively encouraging a generation of kids to be one of god knows how many daily created genders…are these going to go on to have families.

That's just some mad culture war bogeyman stuff. Transgenderism does exist but in reality it's never going to affect a number of people to contribute to demographic collapse. The actual culprit is really just that we're victims of our own success in a way and the number of options available to people in the modern western world means that a lot less people are going to be having families. Economics are a factor, but it's funny that some of the places in the world where the population is still increasing rapidly are places we would consider to be dirt poor. It's not so much a case that it's flatly economically difficult to have children as it is difficult to have children while also maintaining the lifestyle to which we're accustomed in the west or meeting the expectations we grew up with.

Indeed. It's quite funny really. Thinking that they were going to sweep 90% of the vote lol!!

It can be hard to accept that you are not "the 90%" and are in fact "the 0.4%".

We know what you are referring to and its a very tiny number of people that would not register as anything other that a blip in birth rates. In fact those individuals were marginalised previously and were amongst the least likely to have families anyway.

"in the case of a major crisis situation somewhere the response of Ireland should always be "sorry, we are full"?

Not in the least. We've always opened the door to genuine refugees - but in appropriate numbers. It's not right to impulsively offer to help a desperate person and then let them down because you're not acutally capable of honouring your promise. It's actually morally wrong and cruel.

Far better to take 50 refugees and give them a decent life, than take 50,000 and fail them. This is not a matter of 'numbers' - these are actual human beings. We're talking about saving lives. If you jump in the river and save a drowning person, should we say 'ah yeah, but you only saved one person, that's not a big deal' - no, we realise that you saved a human life, somebody's child, somebody's mother, somebody's brother, ………… if you saved everybody on a sinking boat, that's great, but even one person from that boat is enough to matter.

Look at the way the Ukrainians are being treated now, shunted around the place, children being taken out of schools where they've settled, taken away from their friends, the familiar community. That's wrong. It's morally reprehensible and cruel. And it's happening because we took too many.

There is even unequal treatment of them within the group regarding accommodation. Because the government very foolishly and impulsively committed to provide modular homes that they subsequently realised they couldn't afford to build and maintain, you will now have a privileged few who get those homes and others will remain in hotels until they're told to sling their hook. And then what?? No proper thinking, no proper planning, incompetence and short-sightedness all the way.

The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.