Ireland may close doors to Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants

[Menydh]

Ireland may close doors to Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants

EUobserver
May 8, 2006

The Irish government is expected to deny Bulgarian and Romanian workers free access to its labour market if the countries join the European Union next year, a move in stark contrast to its current approach to workers from central and eastern Europe.

The Irish cabinet is likely to insist on work-permit requirements for the new EU members due to worries over the international economy and misplacement of local workers by east European labourers, reports the Sunday Times.

A government spokesman said it will be decided in the autumn whether labour market access will be granted to Bulgaria and Romania.

He emphasised that the decision will be based on a number of factors, such as the labour market situation and the position taken by other member states.

"We'll have to eventually look at Bulgaria and Romania but I'd rather see my colleagues being a bit more advanced," the Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said last week criticising other EU leaders for failing to open up the doors to their labour markets for the ten latest member states.

Ireland was one of only three member states – plus Sweden and the UK – which never imposed any restrictions on workers coming from ex-Soviet bloc countries.

Finland, Greece, Portugal and Spain only last week opened their borders, while Berlin and Vienna are likely to make full use of the restrictions until 2011.

Concerns about displacement of Irish workers by low-paid or exploited migrant workers has become a hot political topic in Ireland recently.

An Irish employers' body, lbec, on the other hand is anxious about international factors, such as the soaring price of oil, that could trigger an economic downturn and reduce the need for migrant labour.

Sofia and Bucharest await the debate

By the end of this year, all 25 EU member states are set to indicate what approach they will take to Bulgaria and Romania, expected to join the bloc in 2007, with a combined population of around 30 million.

So far, only Finland has announced that it will allow full access to its labour market to nationals of Bulgaria and Romania from the date of accession.

But UK interior minister Charles Clarke recently hinted Britain may also not automatically apply the same rule to Sofia and Bucharest as to the eight central and eastern European member states while commissioner Spidla has admitted he has seen "vague signs" of hesitation on the matter in some national capitals.

Some new member states have also indicated they may play tough with the two fresh newcomers.

Czech social affairs minister Zdenek Skromach recently remarked Prague may consider introducing restrictions against Romania and Bulgaria if the "old" member states keep their barriers against the eight former entrants.


[source]

[Savage]

I am so glad Norway is not a member of EU, and probably never will be...

I can imagine your nightmares on free float of turks into your countries.
First the aids came to Europe, then the birdflu, and later maybe also turks...
Can`t be serious?...

I suspect EU of growing beneath its substance, and the wine is much too heavily watered out. Starts to lose its meaning... Who is next EU candidate? Syria or Israel...?

[Siegmund]

Originally Posted by Thore Hund

Who is next EU candidate? Syria or Israel...?

I understand that Israel is on the list of potential candidates. Along with Albania, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Morocco, among others.

Unhappily, so is Norway.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Siegmund

I understand that Israel is on the list of potential candidates. Along with Albania, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Morocco, among others.

Unhappily, so is Norway.

I am shocked...

This sounds like bad science fiction.. I wonder how many of the actual members that would not have joined if they had suspected this perspective.

I feel with you, and will do my best to help you to avoid such a pollution of Europe. From outside of EU of course, thank you Asthor! Odin! Frey!

All those nations of blacks you mention, they are eager candidates, of easy understandable reasons.

But the majority of the norwegian population are against joining EU. We have had two peoples elections on the question, and there will not be any new one at least the first 5 years, because the yes-side needs a majority will among the people to have any chance to force through another poll on the question.

For the red/green government we have now, it is not actual, that will blow the coallision. And the largest of those partners, the Labour party, has shrinked like a dick in cold water, and will need its coallision partneres for loooong times, and they are both against. Definitively against.

The new election in about 4 years may alternatively bring through a dark blue government (Frp), supported by the conservatives (Høyre). There are so much hidden racism in the closet of Frp, and the sceptics against Eu has grown in Frp the latest years, mostly of that reason, I believe. I am a member, and knows many other members. We are all racists, mostly softcore. Frp is largest in Norway now.

So I do not fear that any possibility for a serious consideration of joining will be actual in 7-8 years, that is the earliest, and a new poll will the use about 10 years to mature. And within that perspective of time( 10 years), there are so many foreghn cultural nations in EU, I believe we just can forget about it.

But you have my deepest sympathy...

[Youenn]

Originally Posted by Siegmund

I understand that Israel is on the list of potential candidates. Along with Albania, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Morocco, among others.

Unhappily, so is Norway.

I believe you forget Algeria, Tunisia and others black african country...

[voresall]

I think that a country should only open its doors to immigrants only when there is a shortage of laborforce (when there are too many jobs and not enough people to fill those spots) such as the fields of constructions, farming etc. It should only happen such as that the citizens should not loose their jobs to the immigrants. If this happens then the country would have a lot to win because these immigrants need to buy food, cloths etc. thus increasing sales for the local merchants. However problems occur when the owners would prefer to hire a immigrant over a citizen because of the low wages. When this happens one cannot blame the immigrants but the business owners that hire them. If the business owners fire the citizens and hire immigrants because of the low wages then the responsibility falls on the business owner who has no ethics.

[Gladstone]

I have to admit I think the Japanese have the right idea about these things...particularly in those places which have had a relative homogenity as much of Europe did till relatively recently. At times the Japanese have had "full employment" they're content with that...and don't see the need to "import" workers which in most places is simply for the purpose to exploit as "cheap labor".

They've reaped rich rewards for this, retaining their peoplehood and to an extent their culture. They know each other and have almost non-existant street crime. That doesn't mean the Japanese don't have their problems....I think for instance they work too hard and they have had a problem with organized srime. Even so, they're problems are nothing near the levels of those nations and peoples that have "embraced multi-culturalism".

Statistically they are one of the most generous countries on the Earth toward other nations. They are a continuous slap in the face of those who promote uncontrolled mass immigration as is done in much of the West these days.

[Siegmund]

Originally Posted by voresall

I think that a country should only open its doors to immigrants only when there is a shortage of laborforce (when there are too many jobs and not enough people to fill those spots) such as the fields of constructions, farming etc.

The nasty question is, who gets to decide? In my view, big business should serve the citizens, not the other way around. Many citizens are willing to work - but big business is not willing to pay them a living wage, and so immigrants take some of these jobs, while others are exported to cheap labor markets in India, Turkey and elsewhere.

It should only happen such as that the citizens should not loose their jobs to the immigrants. If this happens then the country would have a lot to win because these immigrants need to buy food, cloths etc. thus increasing sales for the local merchants.

Largely a myth, since these "local merchants" are often and increasingly also immigrants themselves.

However problems occur when the owners would prefer to hire a immigrant over a citizen because of the low wages. When this happens one cannot blame the immigrants but the business owners that hire them. If the business owners fire the citizens and hire immigrants because of the low wages then the responsibility falls on the business owner who has no ethics.

I blame both, but also the government that allows the immigrants into the country in the first place.

It is fashionable to say, "let's not blame the poor immigrants," and in a sense this is indeed just: why victimize people who are just trying to feed their families, and often have to accept starvation wages to do so? The answer is that a line must be drawn. They need to discover that they are not welcome, so that they will stop coming. The alternative is simply the destruction of all those existing (European) families and lands.

War by infiltration and appeals to pity and victimhood is no less war. Why should people give up their lives and lands to invaders, however they come?

[marius]

[Edit by Mynydd: This is an unprovoked attack bordering an ad gentem attack. Thore Hund has not slandered Romania in conceivable anyway. You have been warned in accordance to the rules.]