Irish support for EU membership falls amid immigration fears
Irish support for EU membership has fallen to its lowest level in 12 years amid fears over immigration, a poll has found.
Fewer than half of the people in the study said they thought the bloc was heading in the right direction.
There has been a slow decline in support since a high in 2019, during the Brexit negotiations, when 93 per cent of people backed continued membership of the bloc.
Now, 82 per cent of people said that Ireland should remain in the EU.
That is the lowest level of support since 2013, when European Movement Ireland began carrying out the annual polls in a country with some of the strongest pro-EU sentiment in Europe.
Brussels had backed Dublin's concerns over the post-Brexit border between the Republic and Northern Ireland.
Support for EU membership last year was 84 per cent in Ireland, meaning a drop of two per cent.
In Northern Ireland, where most people voted Remain in the 2016 Brexit referendum, support for EU membership increased by one per cent to 77 per cent this year.
About 34 per cent of people in Ireland felt the EU was not upholding its core values, and 26 per cent were dissatisfied with its direction.
While 47 per cent said they thought the EU was headed in the right direction, 43 per cent said they didn't believe their views were represented at EU level.
Immigration control was cited as the biggest reason why people in Ireland thought the EU was going in the wrong direction.
But 35 per cent of those saying they were dissatisfied with the EU's direction cited migration.
EU red tape (24 per cent) and the perceived militarisation of the bloc since the war in Ukraine (24 per cent) in neutral Ireland were also mentioned. Half of the respondents said they backed increased EU defence cooperation.
EU asylum policies have been attacked by anti-immigration campaigners and far-Right parties in Ireland, which is in the grips of a housing crisis.
Despite that, 56 per cent of people said they backed more countries joining the EU, which would mean more nationals being given freedom of movement rights.
The survey of a representative sample of 1,200 people was carried out by email on March 26 and 28 by Amárach Research and was published on Thursday.
Noelle O Connell, head of European Movement Ireland, told the Irish Times that the level of support for the EU was still 'incredibly high'.
She said the research showed Irish people were pleased to be part of the EU trading bloc because of the threat of tariffs from US president Donald Trump.
Conor McGregor, the mixed martial arts fighter, plans to run in October's presidential election on an anti-immigration ticket.
McGregor, who recently lost a civil court case for rape, has vowed to hold a referendum on EU reforms to asylum law if elected president of Ireland.
He has also suggested Ireland should leave the EU if necessary to avoid US tariffs from Donald Trump, who recently welcomed him to the White House.
However, it is not certain McGregor will get the support he needs to be able to stand in the election to be Ireland's head of state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
What would a Tory spending review look like? With Badenoch, nobody knows
It would be an exaggeration to claim the nation eagerly awaits the invention of 'Badenomics' but Conservatives are certainly impatient with Kemi Badenoch 's apparent inability to create a narrative on the economy, land blows on a weakened Labour government, or compete with Nigel Farage's Reform UK on a key electoral issue. This week's Labour announcements on winter fuel payments and the spending review offer some prime opportunities to 'punch through'. What is the problem? It's hardly confined to today's Conservatives; every political party that has been in power and badly loses an election finds it difficult to get a hearing. Policies the party are most closely identified with are the ones recently and decisively rejected by voters. How far should a heavily defeated team try to claim that they were right all along and that the electorate made the wrong decision? This might be termed the 'blame the voters' approach; while some buyer's remorse may have set in, it's rather futile to attack the electorate. Alternatively, a party can admit mistakes as a means of resetting voter appeal, but that means upsetting former colleagues and handing your enemies an easy win. What are the Conservatives doing about it? Making speeches, for now, rather than policy… and trying to plot a path to redemption. Last week, perhaps in response to internal concerns, shadow chancellor Mel Stride came as close as possible to apologising for the Liz Truss mini-Budget without actually saying 'sorry'. 'Contrition' is the preferred term. Truss has proved to be a potent political weapon, but for the Labour Party, scarcely a day goes by without Keir Starmer or Rachel Reeves making a scathing reference to that disaster. Stride was critical of it at the time, having left the government and as chair of the Treasury select committee; his apology-adjacent speech won't stop Labour deploying Agent Truss (and she keeps popping up, unhelpfully) but it might blunt the attacks somewhat. What are the Tories saying about the rest of their record? Still fairly proud of it. Badenoch says the Tories made 'a lot of good things happen', such as reforms to social security, plus 'near full employment' and raising school standards. 'But people remember the most recent period … and I think the most recent period was the most difficult,' she concedes. So it is Rishi Suank's fault for 'talking right, governing left' as she has put it. So Badenoch is sorry-not-sorry? The Tory mistakes she points to, such as on Brexit and net zero, actually come from the right, not the centre, and don't necessarily chime with public opinion. A passionate and now obdurate Eurosceptic, she seems to want more Brexit at a time when the voters have concluded it was a flop; as the years go on, she'll need to say if she would reverse Starmer's 'Brexit reset' that builds closer, easier relations with the EU. She will also be asked if she would scrap planning reforms that boost growth, stop skilled migration, bring back zero-hours contracts, reduce VAT on private school fees, and so on. She will also need to eat many of her own words as a minister on climate change and green growth, now she's a 'net zero sceptic'. She may hope to win back some Reform voters by tacking to the right, but she can never out-Farage Farage. Indeed, she's ridiculed him for promising economic fantasies, so how can she now embrace them and return to Boris Johnson-era cakeism? Where are the Tories with winter fuel payments for pensioners? They are demanding an apology from Labour. But Labour's present policy is identical to Badenoch's – restore the payment for all now, but try to means-test it later – so she is disarmed, and cannot even claim credit for forcing the U-turn, which was obviously down to Labour panic after local election losses. And what do the Tories say about the spending review? Badenoch's line is that there would not be a black hole in public finances if they'd won the last election, and taxes would be lower. The latter part is true, but equally a hypothetical Tory government would now be imposing an even more painful squeeze on social security and public services, to the point where the numbers would simply not be credible, leading to strikes. Voters sensed this unreality last July, and as time passes the Tories will have to come up with credible plans of their own rather than relying on Jeremy Hunt's pre-election claims. Anything else? Plenty. Stride may be doing his best, but Badenoch seems more interested in 'culture wars' than macroeconomics, which is a problem. Her shadow frontbench team is surprisingly lacking in talent and Labour ministers, despite their relative inexperience, mostly run rings around their opponents. Can the Conservatives forge the 'Right Approach' again? In truth, the Tories are on a long march back to the centre and sooner or later will have to accept climate change and exorcise the ghosts of Truss and Johnson. They need to show themselves trustworthy and realistic, and willing to compromise with their lost voters. These are the kinds of radical, symbolic 'unthinkable' things Tony Blair had to do to make Labour electable in the 1990s, and Starmer did afresh in recent years. Only then will voters lend their ears. Badenoch isn't the leader for that task.
Times
23 minutes ago
- Times
Civil service workforce reaches highest level for nearly 20 years
The number of civil servants has hit a near 20-year high, despite a pledge by ministers to reduce the size of Whitehall. Official statistics showed that the number of people employed by the government grew by 2,000 in the first three months of this year to reach its highest level since 2006. A total of 550,000 people were employed as civil servants in March up from 548,000 in December and a rise of 1 per cent on the same time last year. The figure is 130,000 more than in June 2016 — since then numbers have been steadily increasing, driven in part by the impact of Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic. It came as official figures published on Tuesday showed that employment in the UK last month fell at the quickest pace since the early stages of the pandemic as wage growth dropped to its lowest level since September. Data from HM Revenue & Customs showed that the number of payroll employees fell by just over 109,000 in May, the largest monthly decline since May 2020. On an annual basis, payrolls dropped by 274,000. The drop in employment came after the £25 billion rise in employers' national insurance contributions took effect in early April. Since Rachel Reeves's inaugural budget in October, the number of payroll employees has contracted by 276,000, suggesting that higher employment taxes announced in the budget prompted companies to shed staff. Ministers have committed to reducing the size of the civil service as part of the government's spending review; as many as 50,000 posts expected to be abolished over the next few years. However at the same time the government has announced plans to set up almost 30 new government quangos in a move which critics claim will increase the size of the state. A government spokesperson insisted that the most recent increase had been driven by recruitment to 'operational roles' including tax collectors and probation officers who were classed as civil servants in official statistics. 'As part of our Plan for Change, we are creating a more agile and productive state — reducing back-office costs to deliver savings of over £2 billion by 2030 and targeting spending on frontline services,' they said. 'We have already announced a new cross-government fund for exit schemes to reduce staffing numbers over the next two years, as well as introducing measures to make it quicker and easier to remove poor performers from post.' Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, said in March that Civil Service running costs would be reduced by 15 per cent by the end of the decade. As well as abolishing quangos such as NHS England, ministers have committed to increasing the proportion of civil servants working in digital and data roles, creating a workforce 'fit for the future'. However, Alex Burghart, the shadow cabinet office minister, described the figures as 'crazy'. 'The Conservatives set out clear plans to reduce the size of the civil service — plans Labour have ignored,' he said. 'Instead, they've already set up 29 new quangos and arms-length bodies. They are just not serious.' Two government departments together account for more than a third of the full Civil Service headcount: the Department for Work & Pensions (17.6 per cent of the total) and the Ministry of Justice (17.5 per cent). The next largest are HM Revenue & Customs (12.9 per cent), the Ministry of Defence (10.5 per cent) and the Home Office (9.2 per cent).
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
People in Los Angeles: share your reaction to the protests and military mobilization
Los Angeles is reeling after a series of immigration raids led to widespread protests over the weekend and Donald Trump took the extraordinary step of ordering thousands of US military troops to descend on the city, a move that California leaders have decried as 'inflammatory'. Raids on Friday in areas of the city with large Latino populations led to mainly peaceful demonstrations, but the protests turned violent when federal immigration authorities used flashbang grenades and teargas against demonstrators. Over the weekend, fiery and chaotic scenes played out in downtown LA, Compton and Paramount, with dozens of people arrested. Donald Trump has been accused of intentionally fanning the flames with his decision on Monday to send in 700 marines and another 2,000 national guard troops to LA, adding to 2,000 already sent to the city on Saturday. While Trump has said the deployment was essential for maintaining order, the Los Angeles mayor, Karen Bass, accused the administration of using the city as an 'experiment', while Gavin Newsom, California's governor, called the decision to send in troops without his permission 'purposefully inflammatory'. We would like to hear from people living in LA about the latest events in the city. How do you feel about the immigration raids? What is your reaction to the national guard and marines being deployed? You can send us your thoughts on recent events in LA using this form. Please share your story if you are 18 or over, anonymously if you wish. For more information, please see our terms of service and privacy policy. Your responses, which can be anonymous, are secure as the form is encrypted and only the Guardian has access to your contributions. We will only use the data you provide us for the purpose of the feature and we will delete any personal data when we no longer require it for this purpose. For true anonymity please use our SecureDrop service instead. If you're having trouble using the form, click here. Read terms of service here and privacy policy here.
