Overseas aid - are we getting too generous ?

way too much, and add the 300/400 million on the asylum system, of which 90+ % are bogus...
 
Read Jeffrey Sach's "The End of Poverty" and you will see why we should be doing this and the great good it can do.

I would love for those who say we are giving too much to see the poverty that I saw in West Africa, while working there.

The real question is "shouldn't we be giving more ?". We have money coming out our ears in Ireland, while millions starve. The little bit we give to assuage our collective conscience can never be regarded as "too much", maybe not even "enough".

And before anyone asks, yes I do give to NGOs on top of the few euros from my tax that the government donates.
 
CCOVICH said:
If you are going to make claims like this, i.e. with numbers like 90%+, can you point to the source?
Click to expand...

yes, the fact that only approx 10% of applications are successful - from amnesty.ie:

'Very few asylum seekers are granted refugee status. Currently 10% of asylum applicants gain refugee status'
 
rmelly said:
yes, the fact that only approx 10% of applications are successful - from amnesty.ie:

'Very few asylum seekers are granted refugee status. Currently 10% of asylum applicants gain refugee status'
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that they are 'bogus' applications.
 
CCOVICH said:
That doesn't mean that they are 'bogus' applications.
Click to expand...

according to a few online dictionaries (google: definition false), one of the meanings of bogus is 'false' - an asylum application that fails is in my mind a false application.
 
"That doesn't mean that they are 'bogus' applications."

Absolutely right. Quite a number of applications are withdrawn on the basis that the applicants have for some other reason been granted residency - marriage to a citizen or someone entitled to residency, Irish-born child(ren) (though less now), and a variety of other reasons. Some are refused because certain parts of their countries of origin are deemed safe, even if not the area from which they came, or because their reasons for fearing for their personal safety are not associated with the regime in their country of origin (without necessarily implying that they'd be safe there).

It's a complicated area, and assertions of "90+ % are bogus" are neither accurate nor helpful.

And those - and there are quite a few of them - who are purely economic migrants are generally coming from countries where there is consistent and grinding poverty and the economy barely functions. If we, along with the rest of the EU, increase our overseas aid to the levels we have promised, it's just possible there'll be fewer economic migrants. And maybe fewer people needlessly starving to death, too.

"according to a few online dictionaries (google: definition false), one of the meanings of bogus is 'false' - an asylum application that fails is in my mind a false application."

Still doesn't mean 90+ % are bogus. Not all of them have failed; large numbers have been withdrawn, and a lot are appealed through the courts.
 
Last edited:
rmelly said:
according to a few online dictionaries (google: definition false), one of the meanings of bogus is 'false' - an asylum application that fails is in my mind a false application.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that if you fail the leaving cert or don't get enough points to do medicine, you have a 'bogus' leaving cert?

An application could 'fail' for any number of reasons-i.e. we have a quota on the amount of asylum seekers we will admit; we do not accept applications from certain states etc.
 
 
I'd rather not get into this discussion for fear of being accused of racism, but since you are nitpicking my comments...


the leaving cert isn't an 'application' for asylum - a bogus application is one where someone applies for asylum on unfounded grounds. if not granted, then in my mind that application was bogus and shouldn't have been submitted in the first place.

Your comment about quotas is unfounded (care to furnish some stats or links to this theory?), and rejection of an application because it is from a particular state would be due to it being a bogus application - eg. a state where no persecution occurs etc.
 
rmelly said:
way too much, and add the 300/400 million on the asylum system, of which 90+ % are bogus...
Click to expand...

Sad to see this point of view still prevalant in this age of prosperity. What are we going to be like if there is a downturn?

The reality, despite this poster's claim that we are giving "way too much", is that even with massive budget surpluses, we still have not reached our target of 0.7% of GNP.

Its a good thing for all the irish who were forced to find work all over the world that this kind of hardline attitude is largely confined to here. Remember the Donnelly Visas, and the way our government had to lobby to allow our illegals in the US to keep off the radar?

We should be ashamed of our contribution so far. We can afford it, so why don't we do it?
 
in what sense can we afford it? when we have a 3rd world health system?
 
Don't donations go to support corrupt third world politicians, warlords and charity administration etc?

Can't see how that's going to stop anyone starving.

I think we'd be better addressing the issues sunrock has raided - but they might decrease our quality of life.
 
rmelly said:
in what sense can we afford it? when we have a 3rd world health system?
Click to expand...

We put plenty of money into our health system, the fact that it's very badly managed by its top-heavy administration is a legacy of the health board system -- a system that local politicians didn't want to let go of because of the advantages it gave them. If we ever get real leadership, we have enough resources to have a world-class health system and still give a paltry 0.7% to countries where a child dies every minute from starvation.

With regards to giving money to "corrupt third world politicians, warlords and charity administration etc", this is a simplified take on the point I made a few posts back -- the real debate should be the lack of extra resources in the Irish Aid section of DFA and the lack of auditing, as well as the need for exposure of misspent aid funding where it exists. The way in which irish Aid money is spent is every bit as important as the level of funding.
 
fair enough on the health system, but there are plenty of Irish causes I'd rather see the money going to (education, crime, irish poverty etc.). if people want to give overseas aid then allow it to be tax deductible at their marginal rate, and allow individuals to target where it goes.

we are throwing good money after bad in many cases because of the lack of tansparency/accountability enforced by the department of foreign affairs.
 

It's not an "either/or" situation with regards to public services here and a tiny fraction of our GDP going to foreign aid. We have plenty of resources per capita to deliver world class public services; the fact that we don't have the leadership to deliver same has nothing to do with lack of funding.

There certainly needs to be a debate about accountability in the DFA regarding funding delivery and its effectiveness or otherwise. As taxpayers, we need to be sure that this funding is well targeted and not abused. There are two angles to this that I lwould ike to see addressed:

1. DFA is delivering increased funding with less staff, so controls can't be adequate.

2. When was the last time we saw a news story about an NGO having to give back funds when one of their projects was audited and found wanting? There is simply not enough auditing in this area and it needs to be done.

The last poster's stance against our government's duty to provide funding to meet UN targets is not something I could agree with. The logical extrapolation of that argument could see us stopping healthcare and education to the unemployed since they don't contribute taxes for instance. We all have responsibilities to the less well off, and in fairness our govt does go some way towards meeting those responsibilities on our behalf. Not far enough in my view, but getting there if we keep putting pressure on them.
 

I hear what you are saying, but the average European cow gets a subsidy of $2 a day : more than half of the people in the developing world live on less than that.

It would take a global effort of monumental proportions to alter the balance but I think that if Europe took a stand, and did the right thing, then it would result in a reduction in the static inefficiency and inhibited innovation that exists. Maybe then, the US and the other power houses might follow.
 
The EU is much more resistant to changing it's protectionist stance on agriculture than the US. The common agricultural policy causes poverty and death all over the developing world. The long-term solution is trade reform, not aid. While Irish crops are cheaper in southern Africa than local crops there is no way that their agrarian economies can develop.
Does Ireland do enough? No.
Are we complicate in a system worse than the oil industries abuses in the poorest countries, which cause more long-term harm than the arms industry? Yes.
That’s the elephant in the corner. Forget about the miniscule amounts of aid we give.

In order for a country to become stable politically it needs to become stable economically (and I know both overlap). In order for this to happen their economy has to develop away from subsistence farming. Micro industries need to grow. This can only happen when clear ownership of assets can be established and credit can be raised against these assets. None of this can happen when farmers cannot sell their surplus crops for a profit, when their local market is depressed because first world countries dump their subsidised crops on the developing world.
Other issues such as ownership of natural resources and taxation of those who develop those resources are important. So is political accountability and interference in democratic processes in poor countries by developed countries. So is undoing or helping to undo the legacy of colonialism. But we in Ireland are in no position to complain about these issues while we accept blood soaked farm subsidy cheques from the EU.
 
If you want to argue that we should give less then fine. There are actually good arguments against it, such as discussing the difference between GNP and GDP in Ireland for instance, or any of the other argument put very well on previous posts, regarding Fair Trade etc.

But the fact is we as a nation are not willing to support fairer trade. We seem to want to protect agriculture in Ireland regardless of the global impact. Fair enough, not my way of doing things, but it's a democracy so I'll accept that kind of selfish world view.

So we want it both ways now. Protect Irish farmers, AND avoid keeping our promises on world aid. We made a promise to give 0.7% and despite literally having more money than we know what to do with, we've never kept that promise. That makes our leaders hypocrites, and the fact that it's tolerated by so many people makes the nation a nation of selfish hypocrites.

Ireland was eagerly waving it's hand in the air when the Millenium Goals were announced. We were like the kid at the front of the class trying to be better than our classmates by making these commitments and appearing to be great lads. And it turns out, surprise surprise, it was guff and nonsense. Not only didn't we intend to meet the promises, when we got richer we used that as an excuse to break the promise, rather than an opportunity to keep it.


There's a flaw in your argument. The Irish government is consistantly running surpluses, consistently failing to spend even the amounts they budget to spend. They literally don't know what to do with all the money they are collecting.

If you want to pour more money into Health, Education, Crime etc, then great. Let's make it an optional tax deductable contribution, all will happen is the contributions will be collected and added to the surplus and go unspent.

Your leaders don't know how to fix Health. It's not a question of money. They don't know how to radically reform the health service without butting heads with vested interests. And there is a culture of not butting heads with vested interests, because doing so causes strikes and brings down governments.

Forget this either or nonsense, as if giving 0.7% is going to bankrupt the country or make it impossible to provide adequate services. We've been failing to meet the 0.7% goal since we promised it, and the savings we've made haven't created the great Health System you seem to think we could have.

Either start working for a fairer global economy so that prosperity is more equally distributed, or send some of your wealth to the countries that you exploit. Trying to have it both ways just makes you greedy and selfish.

Which is worse, to think you can buy a clear conscience, or to have no conscience at all? I don't know, but while we're figuring it out we should at least keep the promises we've made.

-Rd
 
I have very mixed feelings when I hear about property developer Niall Mellon organising the 'build new houses' project in South Africa. I respect that he has got up off his backside and got things moving, but perhaps if the construction industry paid its fair share of tax, such projects could be funded by right, and not by charidee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register