What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

CruelCoin wrote: »

The law is based on the constitution, not the other way around.
The constitution is nothing more than a framework to drape laws on, and you're giving it a lot more weight than it actually has.

The name of the country is Ireland or Éire.

If a law or act of government contradicts the constitution the law is declared unconstitutional and unenforceable.

The constitution is the higher authority over acts of government and can only be amended by a referendum of the people. Unlike an act of government which only needs the sitting government to ratify and enact


Honestly for a bunch of people so concerned about their country and da foreigners ruining it you would think you would have a basic understating of how it works.
This is really basic stuff

Name of country is ireland or Éire
Constitution of Ireland > laws of ireland

CruelCoin wrote: »

Then why hasn't that contradictory law of 1949 been declared unconstitutional?

Do you really not understand or are you just playing stupid?

If you don't understand the difference between "A legal description" and a "Name" I'm not sure I can explain it to you in any more basic terms than those words.

Honestly wikipedia covers this very very clearly so perhaps you should go and educate yourself on what is the name of the country before arguing about what it is.


To make it easier here is a link to the wikipedia article on the Republic of Ireland act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948#:~:text=22%20of%201948)%20is%20an,of%20the%20Government%20of%20Ireland.

And here is the text from that page in relation to the section of the act which states the setting of the legal Decription

Republic of Ireland Description
Main article: Names of the Irish state
Section 2 of the Act quite simply provides:

It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.

Notably, the Act did not change the official name of the state. It merely provided the description for the State. The Constitution of Ireland provides that Éire (or Ireland in English) is the official name of the State and, if the Act had purported to change the name, it would have been unconstitutional as it was not a constitutional amendment. The distinction between a description and a name has sometimes caused confusion. The Taoiseach, John A. Costello, who introduced the Republic of Ireland Bill in the Oireachtas, explained the difference in the following way:[9]

If I say that my name is Costello and that my description is that of senior counsel, I think that will be clear to anybody who wants to know. If the Senator [Helena Concannon] will look at Article 4 of the Constitution she will find that the name of the State is Éire. Section 2 of this Bill declares that "this State shall be described as the Republic of Ireland." Its name in Irish is Éire and in the English language, Ireland. Its description in the English language is "the Republic of Ireland."

Its a pedantic side argument by some poster,
Very few if any from within this nation call our country Eire imo,



Ireland
The Republic of Ireland
The Republic (when referring to this Country in some way already)
are all used,
Ive heard others and I know what they are saying,
as this isnt some legal or constitutional debate, then its not relevant



No one, unless they were completely clueless, or doing it intentionally would mistake us for another nation

the Republic of "insert name of another nation here"

1874 wrote: »

Its a pedantic side argument by some poster,
Very few if any from within this nation call our country Eire imo,



Ireland
The Republic of Ireland
The Republic (when referring to this Country in some way already)
are all used,
Ive heard others and I know what they are saying,
as this isnt some legal or constitutional debate, then its not relevant

No one, unless they were completely clueless, or doing it intentionally would mistake us for another nation

the Republic of "insert name of another nation here"

What utter tosh.
The original poster I responded to was getting his knickers in a twist that some big bad foreign bogey men were going to make the nation change its name from ROI. I pointed out that wasn't actually the name of the state and presented either Ireland or Éire as the correct state names and since then we have had several pages of people trying to argue the constitution is not important or that Ireland and Éire are not the names of this state in both english and Irish respectively.


It is a fact and matter of constitutional law that the name of the state is Ireland or Éire.
Furthermore no big bad bogey men domestic or foreign can make the state change its name. That can only be done by the will of the people via referendum.

If you prefer to use the name the british use to call this nation so be it but I will not stop calling this state Ireland or Éire and will contradict anyone who says the name is something else. Because it is not, the name of this state is Éire or Ireland.

CruelCoin wrote: »

Thanks, clears it up for me.

Though the ad hominem wasn't needed. "Unpleasant" doesn't need to be your default.

I wasn't being unpleasant. I stated a fact you contradicted me seemingly without checking if you are right. So I enquired whether you were being deliberately obtuse or just misinformed.

1874 wrote: »

I disagree, your style of posting is condescending and hostile, your posts sound/read angry.
As you seem to not think so, maybe you should take note, highlighted by another poster also.

Was I incorrect in anything I said?

1874 wrote: »

imo its off topic and you were hostile, so whether you were incorrect or not is irrelevant, as my comment/post was on your posting style, unpleasant covers it, so would "sounds angry".

fyi

You are now persisting in ad hominem attacks rather than debate my points on a discussion forum, yet you think I am hostile . Very interesting :rolleyes:

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Because apparently multiculturalism is going to force the nation to change its name.
Despite the fact that ROI is not the name and that we cant just "update the constitution" at anyone's behest.
If a referendum is declared and the will of the citizens is to change the name so be it but it will not be changed by the bogeyman called multiculturalism.

To be fair, no one linked multiculturalism to the official name of Ireland and the official name of Ireland has been a source of confusion for years. In fact, this issue was raised in the Supreme Court before. It is ust a very unimportant issue, so people tend not to notice it.


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-british-studies/article/irish-free-stateeirerepublic-of-irelandireland-a-country-by-any-other-name/2C0024B54AB398985B3F2189BAA0A5BA

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/a-republic-in-name-but-constitutional-conundrums-remain-1.170815
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/why-sinn-f%C3%A9in-will-not-call-the-state-by-its-name-1.4182195

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

To be fair, no one linked multiculturalism to the official name of Ireland and the official name of Ireland has been a source of confusion for years. In fact, this issue was raised in the Supreme Court before. It is ust a very unimportant issue, so people tend not to notice it.


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-british-studies/article/irish-free-stateeirerepublic-of-irelandireland-a-country-by-any-other-name/2C0024B54AB398985B3F2189BAA0A5BA

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/a-republic-in-name-but-constitutional-conundrums-remain-1.170815
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/why-sinn-f%C3%A9in-will-not-call-the-state-by-its-name-1.4182195

Can you please read your own sources!

one of your links says this at the start.

“The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland,” declares Article 4 of the Irish Constitution though not for Sinn Féin for which Ireland is the politically divided island and not the State.

Neither will the party use the Republic of Ireland, or the Republic for short. This is, according to the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, the description of the State though not its name.

None of your links dispute the fact that i have reiterated several times now. That the constitution sets the name of the state as Ireland or Éire and the ROI moniker is not the name of the state. Nothing in any of your links disputes that.

Strumms wrote: »

Either way, we need to be of the ability here in this country, to assist when we can, when we decide we can and not decided by a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels or elsewhere. The key to the door should be in the possession of Irish people. It’s our home.. NONE of us agreed to this.

If your mates up the road came to your place, with a key you’d given them for emergencies ... opened your door and called out... “ this is Thomas and Anna, they’ll be staying here, indefinitely, you need to give them xx amount of money a week, they pay zero rent, pretty much zero anything, anytime... this will continue thanks”.

Sounds preposterous... it’s happening.

To quote the violent femmes

He's tellin'
Lies, lies, lies, lies
Lies, lies, lies, lies
Lies, lies, lies, lies
Lies, lies, lies

That's simply not true we are not forced by the EU to take migrants,

Ireland’s role
Ireland currently has no European Union obligation to take in refugees as it negotiated an opt-in or opt-out clause on justice and immigration measures when the Lisbon Treaty was drafted.

However, Ireland has voluntarily participated in EU relocation and resettlement schemes and established the Irish Refugee Protection Programme(link is external) (IRPP) as part of its response to the 2015-16 migrant crisis.

https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/key-eu-policy-areas/migration_en#:~:text=Ireland's%20role,the%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20was%20drafted.

Strumms wrote: »

Legally no, politically we certainly are.

So we are not forced to then so your previous post is incorrect or lies.
The Irish government can choose to opt in to such arrangements but we are not obligated to.

Strumms wrote: »

We are forced indeed, Articles 79 and 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) will be your friend... are hands not tied but our arm is certainly twisted. Forced in my mind.

No that is incorrect as I have already said we have an opt out clause and in fact I have provided a link with the relevant information already and to make it even easier for you I quoted the relevant section of the link.

So, what impact does the Lisbon treaty have on the state of Irelands obligation under articles 79 and 80?

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

No that is incorrect as I have already said we have an opt out clause and in fact I have provided a link with the relevant information already and to make it even easier for you I quoted the relevant section of the link.

So, what impact does the Lisbon treaty have on the state of Irelands obligation under articles 79 and 80?

I agree with you that it's not the case that the EU forces Ireland to take on mass migration. The immigration policy of any member state of the EU is entirely set by the member state. The EU has no remit. This is why I feel Brexit was the wrong answer to the right question. English people were discontented by the effects of mass migration upon their nation. Their anger was misdirected upon the EU, when the actual culprit was and is the London government. If Brexit has any positive outcome it will be that people learn the EU is a tool, not an actor. What matters is who wields it and for what purpose.

But equally, you should acknowledge that Ireland - whilst entirely in control of of its immigration policy in theory - is a small member state of the EU and is influenced by the requirement to be seen as a good member of the EU. Theoretically Ireland could adopt policies against open borders. Theoretically Ireland could have burnt the bondholders of Irish banks back in 2010. Theoretically.

But decisions carry consequences. If we were to look back to the discussions in 2010 around the bank bailout the common refrain was TINA. There Is No Alternative. The bailout was the only sensible option, as the consequences for doing otherwise was so dire. Look at how Poland and Hungary are treated by the EU - almost as pariah states akin to North Korea - for very tame refusals to share the burden of German mistakes. Does a tiny open economy like Ireland truly have an alternative to the EU line when much larger countries like Poland and Hungary can be openly threatened for non-compliance?

The question is why is the EU line against the interests of the European peoples of its member states? In no country is mass migration a popular cause. Why isnt the EU supporting and protecting European nations against globalism, which was its original purpose?

Oh I don’t know that I’d feel like Hungary and Poland are put upon, not at all. The way I see it, they are doing just fine. Certainly not pariahs, or anything like that. They are effectively setting their own immigration policies (as they, and everyone else, should) and rubbing nicely along within the EU at the same time. Sure, every once and again they are talked to sternly by the big boys and girls of the club, with a threat of financial consequences unless they toe the line, but the truth of it once you get to the nitty gritty of what actually goes down, is that it is all rather toothless and tame, “in the spirit of co-operation”, blah blah blah. And the upshot is that Orban and Morawiecki carry on doing exactly as they please. Sticks and stones and all that. The fact is that once you’re in the club, and have somewhat of a certain presence within it, such as having a sub-society (V4) of a few similarly minded members, you’ll be doing very well for yourself, even when you’re a bit of a thorn in some people ‘s (back)side, which they are. Remember, Germany needs all of these in the club as much as the other way around. Politically, there isn’t a huge amount of leverage here. It would have been used long ago, to a much stronger effect, otherwise.

These guys have a whole, proud history of resistance to oppression, suppression and depression to draw on in the unfortunate, fairly recent, pasts of their countries; these are some of the mentalities that are more than well able to deal handily with the likes of, dunno, Van der Leyen, Michel, or Macron. Let’s just say, I wouldn’t go feeling too sorry for them!

If you are a saddo like me, who watches the EU Council Roundtable YouTube clips for fun (it’s my version of getting a celeb gossip/soap opera fix ), you will notice that the dynamics in the room are always very cordial. Orban or Morawiecki are both as adept as minglers as anyone, and as far from being sidelined or frozen out, as anyone else in the room.

If you’re interested, here is a clip of some of the Eastern European leaders participating in a public interview conducted by Nik Gowing, regarding the thorny issues between themselves and the, shall we say, wider political context of the moment (at Bled Strategic Forum 2020). Gowing is an expert in the art of provocative political interview, but he gets cut down to size and no mistake. Starts at around 10 mins in.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fChQaUmJnsg&t=569s

I think your last paragraph encapsulates the crux of the matter we keep discussing here. A million dollar question, eh.
ETA: my post is in reply to Sand’s one.

Yes, I’m aware of it and alluded to it as the threats of financial consequences in my post. The most recent such threat effectively came to naught, as all their threats do. They know that Orban is well able for them and that they will lose at the game of chicken every time. I don’t know why they still bother.

And yes, there is a formidable strength in mutual support and numbers (Visegrad4) that Ireland sees itself as bereft of. But, does it really need to be that way? I think Ireland could benefit its own interest so much more by linking up with some of the smaller countries regarding the mutual strategic concerns etc. Strength in numbers, just so.

Alas, a few problems crop up.

Firstly, one thing this course of action probably wouldn’t benefit so much are the prospects of the important Brussels seats for some people who shall remain unnamed... so it’s playing politics over the national strategy, if you want to be cynical.

However, more importantly than that, I think the public discourse on these matters sadly doesn’t play a big role in this nation’s consciousness at all. The social and cultural momentum is unfortunately all wrong to what it should be - more American- than Euro- oriented, and the price for this wrongheadedness could prove rather steep in years to come.

(Also, I love Ireland, but I feel its politics, talking in very general terms, are very parochial and, for want of a better word, short sighted. They do, quite unnecessarily, reflect its peripheral geographical position at the edge of Europe rather well, and that’s kind of sad. Ireland should have more self-confidence within the EU and be more ready to throw itself into the cut and thrust of things. This would be beneficial to both it and the EU.)

Cordell wrote: »

The discussion was about corruption, democracy, rule of law, independence of justice and certain slips towards autocracy, the latter one especially in Hungary. Nothing to do with illegal migrants and asylum seekers, who won't go there anyway.

That was this last time. There was also a time when the issue was around refusing to host the migrants. Different issues, same principles, same outcomes.

DeadHand wrote: »

The EU despises native nationalism within the individual countries of Europe as it stands as the greatest obstacle to federalisation.

No, it doesn't. Or, more accurately, the left wing politicians that were voted in by the people do. If this needs to change people need to vote politicians that have different views.
This whole EU vs us narrative is wrong, we all are the EU, it's a partnership, not an impersonal ruling office.

I was talking about illegal migrants and asylum seekers.
Also proves my point that it's not the EU making the rules.