Ireland v England 1995

[Donal81]

No, it is not an "accepted fact". Economists are wholly divided about the benefits of immigration. George Bjoras, Chariman of the Department of Economics at the Kennedy School of Business in Harvard has come out quite clearly against mass-immigration as a economic panacea. He rightly notes that real wages in California have fallen significantly due to Mexican immigration. Large-scale immigration has a deflationary affect on wages. Even the Economist, the ultimate flag waver for open borders, admits that there is almost no benefit to letting in massive amounts of unskilled labour. Moreover, the indirect costs of immigrants more than outweighs any benefits they might add to the tax base. This indirect costs include education, health services and housing. So no, Europe will survive without massive immigration. Further, if you let in enough citizens from another country is it still that country? France will be majority Moslem by 2045, is it still France?

Fergie's Son, while you seem to have plenty of newspapers and books laid out on front of you, why are you only focussing on the negative elements of immigration?

You mention that technology is reducing the need for unskilled labour. How about this: you do a tour of Ireland and ask every small business you come across how they would fare if they could only hire Irish people. This country would go down the pan if that was the case because there would be no workforce left. Construction, catering, hotels, they would all be impotent without immigrants.

If you want to see small firms go out of business, keep it up.

Is a majority muslim France still France? What are you talking about? Do you have an economic problem with immigration or a social one?

[laurent]

http://www.kyxar.fr/~jalac/TAUXCHOMAGENOV04.html

2 343 000 peoples out of works here. i'm one of them at the time.if you need french speaker ...

[Peadar]

2 343 000 peoples out of works here. i'm one of them at the time.if you need french speaker ...

I hope your French is better than your English.

Very suprised to see so many people out of work in Finland.
Nokia must have moved one of their offices to Aisia.

[Littlest Hobo]

Must be in the wrong forum could have sworn it said Ireland v England 1995 at the top.
Anyway...I remember the night well.
In the Dubliner in Digbeth/Brum.....Thought we were on for a winner after that opener by Kelly.
Is it true, that most of the skullheads who kicked off were fooking gers from the other side of the dividing line

[anto eile]

Thanks for that little gem of wisdom.
My life in England is far more complete now.




It's as though you are asking me to call you a "Skanger" or something!?

With a name like "anto" you deserve to be treated as a stereotype.

1-scally is not used in ireland..most people wouldnt know waht it means.
i dont speak british english, hence i prefer to use the word skanger. (as id prefer to use irish rather thant english)
whether your life is "complete" or not i couldnt give a phlying phuck.

and i didnt ask to be called a skanger.had you read my post you would have copped that.

and saying im worthy of an insult simply because of my name is stupid.its like saying someone deserves to be insulted because of their skin color. ie youve no choice in what name youre given.

once again il point out the "attack-the-poster-not-the-post" element.
finally you are a clown*

*yes im aware of the irony,and i wont be replying to your messages again. you fool

[Donal81]

The fact is that large groups will try to immigrate,or have already done so,from the Third World to the 'First'one......get over it!
Unless you're advocating unmitigated protectionism,you have to apply the basic laws of Economics.....these immigrants generally want to to work & are happy to do the jobs idle natives dont want to......(& that's me 'standing-up' for capitalism!) .That's also not to mention how much the Third World has been exploited by the First one.......

Very true. Any debate on immigration has to take into account why such immigration is taking place. If France, England, Germany and Belgium are looking for sympathy because they are having to deal with immigration, they won't get it from me. So many countries in Africa are on their knees because they were colonies for so long, they were the servants of the above countries. We're dealing with it as well because we're rich of our trading with these countries. If one wants to ignore centuries of history and say it's not his or her problem, they must surely be accused of denying history.

[dcfcsteve]

I'll have one last go at this, as you don't seem to get what I'm saying. To emphasise again- I'm not talking about opening the floodgates & letting any aul fecker in. Immigration is necessary, but to ensure it is primarily beneficial it needs to be sensibly managed- for the sake of both the indigenous population & the immigrants themselves.

The numbers of Enlish emigrating to France is de minimis when compared with immigration from the middle-east and Africa. It's no where near the same scale and it is a red herring to suggest otherwise

.

Correct. But the influx of English/English-speakers IS having a profound effect on certain areas of France. The English are moving to predominantly rural areas where their numbers can't so easily be absorbed without impacting local society/language. So whilst they are smaller in number, they are STILL having a significant impact in those areas. But you only seem concerned about any 'negative' impact from immigration when it concerns 'Moslems'. I wonder why..?

While it is true that the 5 major European countries do indeed have ageing populations that is not irreversible or reason enough to flood the country with citizens of a different country

Yet again, I'm not talking about letting anyone in. Immigration is an essential part of economic life, but needs to be controlled to ensure EVERYONE benefits from it - including the immigrant. You're the only one who keeps talking in broad-stroke terms.

One of the fundamental flaws in your arguments are that they do not take into account technological developments. Such developments continue to reduce the need for manual labour as a driver of capital. Moreover, by importating large numbers of unskilled labourers it actually retards technoligical development as businesses become dependent on cheap labour and do not invest the necessary R&D or capital in producing or purchasing better tech

If you look at what I said in my previous post, the key requirement for immigrants is in industries where the indigenous population either doesn't want to work (jobs too dirty/demeaning/depressing) or is increasingly unable to do so as their labour pool is focused elsewhere. The key sectors with chronic need are Health, Transport, Construction & Leisure. Which of those sectors do you foresee huge technological advances that will DRAMATICALLY reduce the need for labour ? Robots that drive buses, wipe the arse of patients, build your house and serve you a beer ? Maybe someday - but not even for our great-grandchildren. Technological advances will indeed impact the need for labour within certain industries, but not in the 'problem' ones where countries are increasingly unable to meet their labour requirements internally.

There simply aren't enough people NOW to fill these roles. The alternative to having immigrants fill them would be to redirect indigenous workers away from much more productive roles within the economy to instead be toilet cleaners, bus drivers and waiters. Which would be economic suicide...

[QUOTE = Fergie's Son] Importing cheap labour, again stick to the real issue, will not solve any alleged pension crisis. [/QUOTE]

Why can you see immigrants only ever being cheap labour ? Are the numerous Indian Doctors/IT Professionals in Britain and Ireland on below minimum wage? A properly controlled system of immigration would allow-in those with skills and or/the ability to work within sectors where there is a need. A properly organised system would make them legitimate workers, removing the need for them to do black market jobs and thereby putting them on roughly the same pay scales as indigenous workers. Some will gravitate towards the cheaper end of the pay market, as that's where some are needed. I've yet to meet a rich Dublin Bus driver - regardless of whether he's from Ballymun or Bangalore. Others will get employment in well-paid areas. So to label all as cheap labour is not only untrue, but assumes there's no way to ensure otherwise.

They also tend to bring aged parents with them and tend to use disproportionately more services than natives (for a variety of reasons) so the indirect costs are enormous raising doubts about any benefits they may bring

A very lazy stereotype, and simply untrue. Some cultures do have a tradition of seeking to bring parents over to a certain degree - e.g. Indian/Pakistani - but that doesn't mean EVERY immigrant trys to do the same. The vast majority of immigrant groups DO NOT seek entry for their parents and extended family. Resorting to such ill-informed stereotypes just reduces the impact of your arguements.

{QUOTE=Fergie's Son]Secondly, with wage deflation they will never make enough money to pay the benefits of the ageing population. So they'll never had enough money to pay for the services for the older population and they'll actually increase the burden on the system through indirect payments. [/QUOTE]

Again - you're relying on unqualified brush-stroke statements. Wage deflation of such a serious degree would only happen if literally millions of unskilled immigrants were allowed into individual countries within a very very short period of time (e.g. one year). Aside from mass movements due to war, this hasn't happened since 1800's America. Secondly - again, you're only seeing negative here. Wage inflation is a natural result of supply and demand. Not enough supply of labour to meet demand = cost goes up. This therefore signifies an economic NEED. There are certain industries in certain European countries that have wage inflation purely due to chronic lack of labour supply (e.g. the construction industry in S. England). And it affects EVERYONE - anyone who's tried to get a plumber in London or a plasterer in Leeds will affirm that wage deflation within that sector of the economy would be a good thing. Again - we're not talking about massive wage deflation across an entire economy, as in a well-managed system that simply won't happen. We're talking about a re-balancing of Labour supply and demand in sectors of the economy where there are chronic shortages - which would remove a lot of the chronic wage inflation that we've seen to date (& allow the indigenous population to focus on more productive areas of the economy, thereby increasing national wealth for everyone).

Thirdly, as immigrants gain political power through sheer weight of numbers who is to say that they'll even agree to continue to pay for these benefits anyways? As the Economist notes, first generation immigrants in Sweden are complaining about paying taxes to support "old white people' Economist: Survey of Scanidnavia, June 2004). That's a comforting thought.

A valid point. But not one that is restricted solely to immigrants. Indigenous populations are making similar noises across Europe - particularly in the area of state pensions. It's unrepresentative to suggest this is exclusively the preserve of immigrants. But you only ever seem to see bad where immigrants are concerned..

Wouldn't it make more sense, both economically and socially, to encourage native citizens to have more children? Make it economically feasible for couples to have kids and raise them? The short-term solution of brining in immigrants doesn't solve the long-term problem.

FINALLY, you seem to be agreeing that there is a problem that needs addressing. Your suggested solution to this, however, has a strong smell of 1930's Germany about it. The lazy selfish indigenous population have had it so good they've forgotten their duty to reproduce. Bung them a few quid and they'll start popping babies out all over the place - that'll solve our problems ! Your suggestion would be laughable if it wasn't so scary.

Significant numbers of the indigenous populations in European countries already think their states provide too much financial incentive to have kids and 'live off taxes'. You suggesting more of this ? Do you honestly think this would meet with voter's approval ? Regardless, the real source of declining birth-rate is in the higher socio-economic groups in W Europe - middle-classes and above who simply don't want to have more than 1 or 2 kids now, and who are chooisng to have them later in life. Offering them extra Family Tax credits every month is hardly sufficient incentive to get them off the golf-course and into the bedroom. A naive, sinister and frankly dangerous solution to a problem that you've finally agreed exists.

Ignoring your calls for Nazi-esque social engineering - the chronic need for labour within certain key sectors of W European economies is here NOW. Waiting 18+ years for a new baby boom is an absolutely ridiculous solution to a problem that unaddressed would have wrecked economic carnage by then. So what do you suggest we should all do in the interim 18yrs Fergie's Son ?? Let me guess - controlled immigration by any chance......?

There is a fundamental disconnect in this debate. You can't just take a large group from one culture and then add it to another and expect nothing bad to happen.

The fundamental disconnect here is in your arguements Fergie's Son. Only towards the end of your above post did you finally admit that there is a population problem within Western Europe that is causing chronic labour shortages, & thereby economic problems. Your solution ? Have more babies and wait 18yrs for them to grow up. The disconnect ? What we do in the meantime.....

P.S. Adam etc - might be best to move a chunk of this thread into the 'Off Topic' area, as we really have gone-off on a tangent ! Apologies....

[Closed Account 2]

- Immigration offers an opportunity to boost the workforce - particularly within vital areas that indigneous workers don't want to be employed in (transport, health, lesiure etc).

It’s true that it can boost the potential work force, but I don’t think that workforce is a major problem in Western Europe at this moment in time. There are, after all, 5 million unemployed in Germany - Europe's largest economy - which is a number not seen since the 30s, and a number that looks like it will increase. Given the paucity of job opportunities in countries like Germany, does it really make sense for it to use immigration for the purpose of boosting its work force now. If Germany's population does indeed decline or age drastically, then it may well be necessary for it boost its workforce and use immigration to achieve this. But in economic terms, at this moment, immigration to boost the workforce doesn’t appear to be necessary.

- Immigration offers a way round this. (Note - I'm not talking about random or unskilled immigration here. You're the only one again who's talked in such general terms).

But, in this day and age, is skilled immigration morally justifiable for the point of view of the departed country? If significant numbers of skilled workers leave poor countries to go and work in rich countries, does that not then result in a "brain drain" effect on the poorer countries. If a poor country (Country X), has a significant loss of skilled professionals (eg teachers) who trained in Country X but now live and work in, say, Western Europe; then Country X has lost the benefit of all the training it gave those skilled professionals. It outlaid the cost of educating/training them (giving them "skills" so to speak), yet it will not see the benefits of that. Whereas Western Europe will get the benefits of skilled workers which it cost it nothing to train. If Country X is deprived of its brightest an best year on year, how will it ever develop (economically) as a country?

[Éanna]

i remember one cork fan claiming he had never been ntimidated as mush in his life after one Rovers v cork game at rihmond park, when Rovers fans had the sheer audacity to A: sing abuse at the away fans and B:take the p!ss out of them.

I think that was probably me. And I was referring to the game where we had several stones and a glass bottle thrown at us. Thats why it was intimidating.

As for the issue of who causes the trouble- I fully accept (as i did at the time) that it was City fans who caused the hassle at the cross last year, not rovers fans. The fact is though, that this element only seems to appear for Rovers games, because of Rovers reputation. As I also said, thats not Rovers fault, there's not much you can do about it, but it is a fact.

[green goblin]

In the words of Jack Nicholson in Mars Attacks:

"Why can't we all just get along"???

[Fergie's Son]

Very true. Any debate on immigration has to take into account why such immigration is taking place. If France, England, Germany and Belgium are looking for sympathy because they are having to deal with immigration, they won't get it from me. So many countries in Africa are on their knees because they were colonies for so long, they were the servants of the above countries. We're dealing with it as well because we're rich of our trading with these countries. If one wants to ignore centuries of history and say it's not his or her problem, they must surely be accused of denying history.

So because coutries were once exploited they should be allowed to emmigrate freely? That's nonsense and it does a disservice to both countries. Firstly, the mass movement of people brings a long with a laundry list of social and economic problems. Secondly, it is bad economics for the emmigrates home country as they are exporting the talented members of their population to first world countries thus the cycle continues.

What would make more sense would be staggered debt relief, elimination of subsidies on European foods and real investment. That would solve both the immigration problem and the disparity between the countries.

[lopez]

I've lost touch in this emigration row, but I know this Columbian mate of mine who was a dropout PhD in economics. His arguments were always top when it came to economics. He claimed emigration, rather than it being a hindrence and burden, it's instead getting your assets for nothing. Where is the world's greatest economic power in terms of growth? You know that one and yet for much of the nineteenth/twentieth it never needed to educate the majority of its people. The jobs would be made, places filled, and the cost of education missed a generation.

BTW, if France is going to be majority muslim in 2040 or whatever then only France is to blame (see my post regarding its open door policy to Algerians). Also, as I asked one Naziphile who I worked with, what have you done for the white race (ie: keeping the numbers up)? No kids he replied. Well, perhaps white people should try knocking out a few more children if they think their pensions are going to be paid by plucking the banana tree. If not for anything else, we should applaud the young girls giving Ireland a generation of, as Kevin Myers would charmingly call them, 'b*stards.' In any fascist state they'd be given medals.

[Donal81]

So because coutries were once exploited they should be allowed to emmigrate freely? That's nonsense and it does a disservice to both countries. Firstly, the mass movement of people brings a long with a laundry list of social and economic problems. Secondly, it is bad economics for the emmigrates home country as they are exporting the talented members of their population to first world countries thus the cycle continues.

What would make more sense would be staggered debt relief, elimination of subsidies on European foods and real investment. That would solve both the immigration problem and the disparity between the countries.

Because these countries were ONCE exploited? Come on...what economics book are you reading?

I never said immigration is a wonderful thing - I'm sure many of these people would prefer to stay in their own countries if they could make a decent living there and lead a half-decent life, which you don't seem to take into account.

'Staggered debt relief' - how long will this take to reverse these countries' economies? How do you explain that to the teenaged man or woman who is staring down a life of no money or prospects? Are you going to tell him not to worry because staggered debt relief is on the way?

What of miserable despots such as Mobutu who France helped to prop up while he made millions off Congolese people? The Congo is now one of the worst regions in the world, corrupt, vicious and violent. You seem to present European countries as helpless victims...

I don't think the idea of someone leaving their home for the cities of countries hundreds of miles away is a romantic thing but I couldn't in a clean conscience tell people not to emigrate for a better life, certainly not when I think of the circumstances some of these people are coming from and especially not when I can trace family to Queens, Boston, Hartford, Chicago, Liverpool, Birmingham and Melbourne.

[dcfcsteve]

Very interesting article in the London Evening Standard today.

For those who don't know, the Standard is the sister paper of the Daily Mail, openly supported Hitler in the 1930's, and is the paper that Ken Livingstone has had his recent row with/about. It's very right-wing and generally anti-immigration.

The article offers the business perspective on the Immigration debate, and has some very interesting quotes :

"Economists and business groups are now wading into the debate, warning that plans to limit visas for low-skilled migrant workers could propel wage inflation to catastrophic levels".

"Philip Shaw, Chief Economist at Investec, said the restrictions could damage the economy, already straining under a tight labour market and skills shortages".

"The ever-tightening labour market is exerting a strangehold on employers, forcing them to pay more to recruit the staff they want".

A spokeman for the Engineering Employer's Federation : "Most manufacturing companies are global and their workforces are global. The minute we start making life more difficult to recruit staff, many overseas companies are going to question whether they want to locate in the UK".

A spokesman for the Enginering and Technology Board : "Without foreign labour, the construction industry would grind to a halt".

Anthony Thompson, head of employment policy at the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) "There is no doubt that immigration, if managed properly, delivers economic and social benefits. Skills shortages mean migrant labour plays a critical role in filling the gaps. A certain number of unskilled workers need to be allowed into Britain too".

Dan Bridgett, London Chamber of Commerce : "Many firms in London wouldn't be able to staff their businesses if it wasn't for migrant labour. Anything that turns the tap off would clearly have an impact on the level of pay in the capital".

"Nick Warner, group Gnereal Manager of London-based Good People Recruitemnt, stirred up a storm of controversy last week after saying he recruits mainly Poles and Portugues, because English people on benefits have "given up the work ethic".

"It's not just wage inflation that would be affacted by tougher immigration controls. There are implications for a host of issues, from housing and transport to health and education".

"The government may even have to rethink its pensions policy, with a recent report from Cass Business School claiming that up to 10 million immigrants will be needed by 2025 to ensure pensioners can continue to get £80 a week from the basic State Pension".

[dcfcsteve]

France will be majority Moslem by 2045

Fergie's Son - I'd be grateful if you could provide sources and justification for your oft-stated point about France becoming majority Muslim by 2045.

I'm keen to get a better understanding as to how a population of 5m people will propel themselves to number over 25million within a single generation.

Hard stats and qualified sources please. No text-based conjecture or personal assumptions.

Thanks.

[Éanna]

Fergie's Son - I'd be grateful if you could provide sources and justification for your oft-stated point about France becoming majority Muslim by 2045..

its the kind of thing you'd probably find here courtesy of Monsieur Le Pen and his buddies.

[Junior]

Great debate lads - foot.ie educating Irish football fans everywhere

[Donal81]

The thread here reads "Ireland v England 1995" - can you morons go find an Al Jazeera site and continue this $hite somewhere else?

You don't have to read it!

[Donal81]

I wanted to read about football Donal, I wanted to read an intelligent debate about what happened in 1995. Gob$hites like you tolerate these morons on here far too often for my liking. Ya tree hugger ya.

I know this is a football website but threads go off on a tangent all the time, what's your beef? There's at least 5 pages about 1995! That's a caustic tongue you have...

[WeAreRovers]

I know this is a football website but threads go off on a tangent all the time, what's your beef? There's at least 5 pages about 1995! That's a caustic tongue you have...

Yeah, I've never understood people getting upset about threads moving "Off Topic"

Imagine being in the pub talking about, for instance, Ireland v England in 95 and the conversation veered towards, say, immigration into France.

Imagine the reaction if some gobdaw refused to follow the natural flow of the conversation because it was "Off Topic" Makes no sense to me....

KOH