That Cabinet meeting means everything has changed.
Are we capable of adapting to the new reality?
We are living in a new political reality. It's a new dawn. At last week's meeting of the Cabinet a number of Ministers raised the same problems with immigration that we've been talking about for the last year. Inside the meeting it was recognised that Ireland is full (or as the Taoiseach put it afterwards we have reached a capacity limit). It was recognised that, as a consequence, refugees need to be strongly discouraged from coming here and the way to do that is by restricting their access to both welfare and accommodation. There is an emerging pragmatism about immigration. What we have been demanding for the last year is now set to become government policy. We can allow ourselves an "I told you so".
Our views are now part of the political mainstream. The open borders approach to immigration championed by People Before Profit and the NGOs now belongs to the political extreme. They are on their way to becoming the outsiders.
It's understandable that people on our side should react with annoyance to this about face on the part of the government. The government castigated us, derided us, even called us names for holding views that they are now recognising as being sensible and right.
John McGuirk, editor of Gript, says he has nothing else to say, no further analysis to offer us about all of this other than to call the Cabinet stupid.
[People tell me] It’s not sufficient simply to write that they are stupid – there must be some kind of policy or cultural explanation for their conduct. We’re supposed to give you the rational explanations for the irrational things that they do.
This week, though, try though I might, that simply isn’t possible. The only explanation – the only one that fits – is sheer, unprecedented, stupidity.
It might be understandable that people feel that way but it doesn't lead to smart politics.
It doesn't come across too well if you are loudly proclaiming that the government agree with everything you say while simultaneously and just as loudly proclaiming that they must be stupid.
The people on our side who have a chance to benefit from these changed circumstances, the ones who can prosper in this new political reality, are the ones who look at what's coming out from government now and see it as an endorsement. A welcome endorsement. The successful among us will be the ones saying they're happy that government finally got it right, they won't be going around calling the politicians who agree with us stupid. They'll call attention to how much they have in common with the immigration pragmatists in government. They'll welcome what the government is doing because it will strengthen their hand when they call for a doubling down on this new approach to immigration. They'll take the endorsement and use it to ask why can't we do what Denmark are doing or Sweden or Italy.
"I'm happy that the Taoiseach sees the need to cut welfare payments to so called refugees, we've been saying this for a long time now, but what the Taoiseach proposes doesn't go far enough to be effective. We welcome the idea that welfare cuts are on the table but we don't need empty gestures. We need to cut benefits by enough to finally stop the influx of Ukrainians. And why aren't we stopping the payments to IPAS applicants too. Look at Denmark."
When you wake up one morning and find you've suddenly got whole parties on your side of the argument it only makes sense to adapt to that and to use it. Not that we need another Farage but consider his relationship with the Conservatives. Mobbed at their conferences, putting the wind up their leadership, pulling the party in his direction. There is room here for someone who’s outside a party but is liked by its grassroots and able to go a bit further with his rhetoric and his demands than the leadership can.
On top of that the ones who are going to be successful will be the ones demanding that the same endorsement, the same acknowledgement that we were right all along, should carry over to the other issues we've been highlighting - the LGB in schools stuff and, especially, the green agenda. It should be clear just how much this about face on immigration does to undermine the unimpeachable, written on tablets of stone authority the government claim for themselves on the LGB and Green agendas. There are cracks appearing everywhere. Slowly slowly then all at once.
.
What’s this new political reality you're talking about? Convince me.
https://extra.ie/2023/10/30/news/irish-news/welfare-cut-delayed
One senior minister admitted the Government erred by creating a 'paradise' for asylum seekers with social welfare and accommodation provisions significantly in excess of what the rest of Europe offers.
A Cabinet source said: 'We have to change the conditions of support for Ukrainian refugees in terms of welfare and housing. ‘We just can't cope with another 40,000 to 50,000 people who can't support themselves who will arrive here in the next year.'
Senior Government sources privately acknowledge the relatively generous refugee welfare regime provided by Ireland [was an] error.
One minister who witnessed the heated exchanges at the Cabinet meeting admitted that 'pressure is showing' now as a 'blame game has started'.
Another minister added: 'There are too many pull factors toward this island. We're completely out of sync with many of the European countries and it's already causing issues around social cohesion.... Decent, right-thinking people are becoming increasingly unhappy with the numbers coming in and the levels of money being spent.'
Ministers are fearful of a backlash from opposition parties and nongovernment organisations (NGOs).
One source said: 'It's fair to say that many of the tensions at Cabinet have been caused by no one minister wanting to be the one who shoots Bambi.'
.
Why is it happening now?
We have five year election cycles in Ireland. Five years before a newly elected government has to call another election. Which gives them, ministers, junior ministers, lowly backbenchers about three and a half years at the start in which they don't need to bother themselves much with what the electorate think. It's during that time, its youthful salad days, that a government's attention turns to Europe - agendas are honoured, careers are advanced, CVs padded, futures assured, funds obtained and diverted to constituencies, executive jets flown in, corridors of power trodden.
And then about a year from the end comes the ugly reminder that if you want any more of that you need to get re-elected. That's where we are now. Nine months away from Local and European elections, maybe not much more until the General.
And, lest anyone needs reminding, 75% of the electorate say we have taken in too many refugees.
Following the Cabinet meeting last Tuesday, which focused on accommodation, the discussion in government circles quickly widened to include the other major pull factor - the uniquely generous handouts we offer Ukrainians.
Which shows, if it was needed, that this Cabinet row was about immigration itself not just how it contributes to the housing problem. And it also hammers home that there really is a change taking place in the government's approach to immigration. For months now the government has been looking at benefits as a pull factor for immigration. And for months it has been dropping the subject. But now, suddenly, the Taoiseach is talking to the media about the need to reduce benefits for newly arrived Ukrainians.
As far back as last July cutting social welfare benefits for Ukrainian refugees to bring them into line with other EU states, as well as limiting how long they should be provided with accommodation, was being discussed by Varadkar, Martin and Eamon Ryan at the cabinet sub-committee on Ukraine. Nothing was agreed.
Around the same time O'Gorman's Department looked in to how supports for Ukrainian refugees varied across the EU but the full review wasn't published.
We can thank Marc MacSharry, the Sligo-Leitrim TD (Ind Ex-FF) who won't be running again, for the most recent inquiry in to this issue. He commissioned the Oireachtas Library and Research Service to report on how supports varied across the EU. They got the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Development on the job and the Report was published in the last few weeks.
Some of the present stir can probably be traced back to this recent report having landed. McSharry, who has always enjoyed winding up Micheal Martin, must be feeling quite pleased.
The report makes absolutely clear how much of a draw Irish welfare benefits are for Ukrainians. It's an open and shut case. There is no room for discussion.
Read the headlines here
https://archive.ph/drnnb#selection-819.0-847.255
But, for example:
The number of Ukrainian refugees in Belgium, which has the lowest welfare payments [€7.90 per week], has increased from around 67,000 last February to 73,000 now. The number of Ukrainian refugees in Italy [€75 per week] has remained unchanged at 167,000, while the number in France [€99 per week] has actually fallen from 119,000 to 70,000.
But in the same period, the number of Ukrainian refugees in Ireland [€220 per week] increased from 73,000 to 94,000.
Finally things are changing. This Halloween the government is examining plans to scare off future Ukrainian refugees by introducing a lower welfare rate for the new arrivals.
You can tell they're serious about implementing it because there's already a fight over whether this hot potato is the responsibility of the Dept of Social Welfare who hand out the money or the Dept of Justice - "government sources insisted that Humphreys’ department was merely the agency of payment with the rates being set by Helen McEntee’s Department of Justice."
They are also looking to do away with the tax break for individuals hosting refugees.
So changes to Ireland's immigration policy are on the table. Parties and individuals are taking positions on it in advance of the upcoming elections. Politicians are starting to politic. Who are the runners and riders. Who's the smart money on.
.
Seconds out
Anyone who's interested enough to have read this far will probably be familiar with what went on inside last week's Cabinet meeting. It's been well rehearsed by now. But the dynamics of that meeting are as important as what was said. Who was pushing things, who was backing away. Who are our allies in this, who is going to be useful and who would be wasting our time.
As is the nature of a good row not everyone in that cabinet meeting saw things the same way. Not everyone wanted that row to happen. Varadkar engineered it.
At party leaders' meetings and cabinet subcommittee meetings over the last two months the Greens had tried to get O’Gorman’s idea about a 90 day limit on accommodation being provided to Ukrainians on to the cabinet agenda.
One of the three leaders, presumably Martin, stopped it being put before the cabinet.
It wasn't on the official agenda last Tuesday and, due to a malfunctioning government jet, Martin only showed up to cabinet at the last minute and mightn't have been aware of the gossip or what the mood was going in. But at the end of the cabinet meeting, when all official items had been dealt with, Leo, unannounced, invited O’Gorman to speak (Any Other Business). O’Gorman then seemed to go full tilt drama queen and it was Martin who was the one to hit back against him.
Martin’s view seems somewhere between
not wanting the problem dumped on housing, a FF dept (FF would prefer to see cuts to welfare payments being used to drive away Ukrainian refugees - those being the responsibility of Social Welfare and Justice, both FG ministries)
not wanting to seem anti refugee.
Given that even now Martin is still auditioning for his next job in the EU by making simpering noises about refugees you’d lean towards that second option.
What kind of opportunity has Varadkar spotted for himself and FG here. Time will tell.
.
Leo. Leo. Leo. Keep them out! Keep them out! Keep them out!
Why is Varadkar the one doing this?
Given his dependence on FF and the Greens and the poor support FG has in the polls Varadkar is probably in the weakest position of anyone who has occupied the office of Taoiseach. He has always been a natural conservative trying to survive and prosper in the lefty/liberal world of Irish politics. In that environment it was a lot easier to come out as gay than as a conservative.
Leo Varadkar: Leader of the "Far Right"
It's early days yet in this new reality. Things are murky, the direction things could take still very obscure, but as of now there seems less downside risk to trumpeting Varadkar as one of us than there would be in say relying on the endorsement of Micheal Martin. There will probably be Fianna Fail backbenchers who we'll be able to throw our arm around at some stage and soak up some of their legitimacy, but for the moment Fine Gael seem to be offering the better options.
Seeing infighting like this among the main parties the first thing that hits you is how odd it is in recent times, how little we've seen of it in Irish politics of late. You have to go back three years and the negotiations around government formation for the last time parties' self interest was being pursued like this out in the open and politicians weren't speaking with one voice.
Not only is the bickering starting but the elections looming over everything is adding a nice sauve qui peut every man for himself air to things.
.
When two sides go to war one is all...
But there is also the beginning of something much more important than the pre-election bickering. We're seeing something reemerge that's been missing for even longer in Irish politics and that goes a lot deeper. A debate. The beginnings of a major disagreement about policy between two sides that are both powerful and equally capable of making themselves heard. On the one side we have most government politicians, the ones who are newly pragmatic about immigration, and on the other side the immigration NGOs and the parties that remain loyal to their agenda, mostly the small leftist ones like PBP. Where SF will stand in this is one of the most interesting questions to be answered between now and the elections.
A genuine debate starting up on immigration, a debate within Irish politics with two different sides to it (Wow!) and the mainstream one, the political powerful one, is the one echoing our talking points, promising to do some of the things that we've been looking for.
Where does that leave us?
.
Why listen to any of us if the main parties are saying the same thing we are
It's great to hear government ministers finally saying the kind of things we've been waiting a long time to hear and promising to do some of the things we've wanted.
It's not just that though. What's also happening is that we're being brought in from the cold. We can't be written off as extremists any more when government leaders are saying the same things we are. Those of us who want to can now begin to shake off the labels that have been applied to us.
In this debate that's kicking off there's an opening for us, a chance to join in on the side of the immigration pragmatists. For those who want it. There is a place in that debate for making the argument that what the government is saying is welcome but it doesn't go far enough. The Taoiseach has said, and I agree, but what we also need...
Not everyone will be quick to stop applying the labels to us. You'd guess that RTE and the Irish Times will end up on the NGO side of this immigration debate and would probably see an advantage to having us on air or in the paper claiming to be on the same side as the government. In RTE's eyes having us associated with something would be a negative. However, not for the first time, the public probably won't be buying what RTE or the Irish Times are selling.
Who on our side would take the chance to go on air talking up what they had in common with government ministers and demanding that the government go further. Justin? - based on what he thinks of mainstream politics probably not. James Reynolds, surely. Malachy, probably. Stephen Kerr, Gavin Pepper, you would think so.
That opening, that way in to this mainstream debate will be taken by those among us who are going to be politically successful. And if it's any consolation FF and FG will be far more uncomfortable being in our company than we will being in theirs
It doesn't have to be us. There's room here for others to go in to a TV or radio studio as an obscure councillor, backbencher or even a junior minister and emerge a star in the making.
Opportunity knocks for councillors like Paddy Holohan (ex SF), Aidan Mullins or Fionntán Ó Súilleabháin (both still in SF) and Noel Thomas (FF). Or most likely someone else who's still below the radar.
For us it's a case of repeat things that FG and FF say, welcome what they've done - just look for more - welcome their endorsement of our approach and look to apply it to other agendas. Ridicule the positions they've held previously, mock them for being late to the party, but talk up where they are now and use it as a springboard, a ticket for us to respectability and the mainstream.
Looking back a year from now most of what's been written here is probably going to seem very very obvious. Why was it even worth writing down? Why did it need to be said?
Right now though to many people it wouldn't be that obvious at all.
There are many, probably the majority of those in the protest movement, who will look at this opportunity to rub shoulders with political figures, graft our message onto theirs and extend it, find common cause against the NGOs - and simply not be able to stomach the idea. Three years of seeing the government parties as the enemy will be too much to overcome. Three years of having them looking down on us. For some it just won't be possible to get beyond calling them all stupid.
But for those who want to be at the centre of the debate, who want to make our points in the media and at the highest levels of government and where policy is being discussed, the opportunity is there for the first time since this protest movement began.
For the ones who take it there's an interesting journey ahead.
Coming soon: what we can do to help them.
Immigration and refugee policies fluid and sensitive subjects, benefiting from taking in the big picture driving various 'migrations', being aware and sensitive and also realistic and pragmatic.
In these 'weaponised days', where wars are waged in many less obvious ways.
Few expected 20 years ago that we would be surreptitiously undermined by engineered migrations
from aggressive wars (often in the middle east) to dive victims of 'shock and awe' attacks on their homelands for geopolitical agenda's.
The NATO 'no fly zone' wanton illegal destruction of Libya and the Obama/Clinton/NeoCon aggression in Syria and beyond triggered a long planned weakening of European countries by flooding them with large influx for war victims, channelled from destroyed home countries to now be diluted and economically stressed and overburdened democratically more liberal host nations,
Sweden, Germany, Ireland, UK etc... for the aggressors this represented multi decade planning
of reshaping the world to their essentially criminal expansionism towards their new world remodelling. Gladio, Club of Rome, UN, many NGO' financed and engineered by Soro's and Kissinger, PNAC, ++++ By deception these wars have torn our world asunder, from the home grown, aka Bush/Chaney/CIA Mossad, Neo Con axis's 'false flag 911 operation to largely same same mob's DoD 'Operation Warp Speed', the military 'live exercise' which was the global distribution of a 'rigged', 'Emergency use authorisation' to roll out, their untested, shoddily manufactured, 'counter measure' / bioweapon. Never has so many lies and so much deception been levelled against so many in such murderous and relentless genocidal war against humanity. 'Fantastic' though this sounds the facts bear this out time after time. Bogus modelling from serial wildly inaccurate predictions @Imperial Coll /Ferguson. Fake PCR 'tests' upcycling false 'positive's' - financial incentives to manipulate, global censorship and falsified 'scientific' reports, ventilators, the lockdown of healthy people and closing of business's, 24/7 fear promotion coupled the demonisation of medical and pharma professionals, M.Yeadon, Dr's M. Yeadon, V. Coleman, Mc P Cullough, Dr's K.Kingston, S Latypova, J Ruby and Many more - just like blatant lies to downplay the proven beneficial effects of Ivermectin and HCQ in order to get the key 'emergency use authorisation', to green light the global distribution of their - gene therapy nano tech
experimental bioweapon.