Clearly there are a bunch of rightwingers/UKIP tendency on this site who believe immigrants are all either criminals, scroungers or a drain on society. Sir Nicholas Winton died this week. If he had tried to bring in 669 children these days, you would have all been lined up with the rightwing press, demanding they be refused entry. And then there are the Ugandan Asians. And the whites who fled Rhodesia. Ashamed of the callousness, selfishness and inhumanity exhibited by a large number of people who seem to lack the ability to think "there but for the grace of God go I".
Go straight back to go and pick up your Nobel Peace Prize on the way. BTW how many migrants will you personally be housing in your spare rooms.
I agree with Morris that identifying any half decent betting value in this afternoon's United Kingdom British Grand Prix is proving to be exceedingly difficult. Ultimately I've gone for Lewis Hamilton to achieve the "Hat Trick", i,e Pole + Win + Fastest Lap, available from Laddies, Hills & Paddy Power at odds of 2.75 (7/4). The first element is of course already in the bag, the second appears to be an odds-on likelihood, which probably means the prospect of this bet delivering is down to whether Lewis can be sufficiently enthused to secure the fastest lap in the final stages of the race were he to be, say, 10 - 20 seconds clear of the field by that stage. I am hoping that the fanatical cheering of a massive home crowd will spur him on to achieve this third leg of the bet.
Agree that there's not a lot of bets around providing anything like value, and what little chance there might be of rain is now clearly going be after the race. Maybe a lay on Hamilton (he's 4/9) or a series of small bets on the leading non-Merc drivers (the field bar the two Mercs are all 33s or lower!) Fastest lap to me is a mug's bet, anyone who swaps tyres towards the end, or who goes hard>medium could get it. Also the finish line is in an unusual place that means someone could get it as they enter the pits rather than on the track.
The EU has not taken this view. It has asked its member states to share the burden of caring for these people. We have refused. As we are, through our Navy, contributing to it in a modest way that is pretty shameful and Farron is right to say so. I think the policy is wrong but given the policy of non return we should indeed help.
I think that is pretty harsh.
As you say, there is a very good reason for returning to point of origin or, at least, to a safe non-EU location.
But the EU has decided not to take that view. However, we have an explicit derogation from accepting EU policy on matters such as this, so we have chosen to stick to our guns.
I think the activities of the Royal Navy people from the water is admirable. I wish they would put them elsewhere, but to blame us for "contributing to the problem" when we have recommended an alternative course of action is risible.
Or are you saying we should let the migrants drown rather than drop them off in Italy?
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with all of that.
But why do you think the role of the Navy is shameful?
As long as they do not return them to where they came from , the problem will escalate. We are only encouraging the problem.
But that isn't a choice we have: the EU has set its policy (wrongly) otherwise.
So our choices are:
1. Let them drown; or 2. Land them safe in Italy
I think 2 is a better option than 1, even if the second step (landing in Italy) is wrongheaded
I also think Foxinsox is right to point to what we did for the Ugandan Asians. The way we treat asylum seekers in this country is shameful but it is again a deliberate policy designed to discourage them and reduce their numbers to something deemed politically acceptable. To claim we have a "proud record" in this area is simply untrue. We don't and it is deliberate because we don't want them to come here. It is as simple as that. Look how we are responding to the Syrian crisis.
For me, there should always be a place for a genuinely Liberal party willing to point out our hypocrisy and make us uncomfortable. They are a force for good and will occasionally make us rethink our selfishness.
What you and the frankly moronic Foxinsox are ignoring is that it is the Lib Dem support for mass migration across Europe that has turned this country against immigration including asylum seekers. It is the gross abuse of freedom of movement that he, and I presume you, support that has meant that when we have genuine cases of need we are now more inclined to say 'no, sorry, we've done enough.'
Should we be taking genuine asylum seekers - yes. Should we be taking them in larger numbers than we do now - absolutely. But we can't and we won't because we already have a massive immigrant population, increasing hugely every year and we have such rampant abuse of the whole EU migrant issue and such abject failure by our neighbours on the continent to deal with issues like Calais that we are forced to say that we can no longer be the destination of choice for the world's dispossessed.
The real hypocrites are Farron, the Lib Dems and ignorant, malignant non entities like Foxinsox who have helped to cause this problem in the first place and by supporting the mass movement of peoples across Europe and who are now shouting about how nasty people are for not taking yet more migrants.
The HYS replies to Farron in the Guardian are not at all in agreement with him and dismiss his words in very strong terms.
Had a long chat yesterday with one of the 6 LD MPs not seeking election. He said (there are no she's) that he is TF leaning but has concerns about his maturity but likes NL but feels he is not a real visionary. In fact he is concerned abut the lack of potential leadership in the LDs and feels that NC should have stayed to rebuild the LDs.
In response to some nonsense from Farron reported in the Herald yesterday (look it up if you can be bothered), an SNP spokesman said:
"Tim Farron sounds like a small boy saying rude words to attract attention from grown ups.
His remarks are ridiculous and embarrassing to his own party - they are so wrong that they underline why his party was comprehensively rejected by the people of Scotland last month, and in the 2011 Holyrood election."
Sums him up perfectly as viewed by the vast majority of Scots (not just SNP). Still, I expect to win a few pounds at around even money as I bet on him to win months ago-I would be amazed if he did not.
The EU has not taken this view. It has asked its member states to share the burden of caring for these people. We have refused. As we are, through our Navy, contributing to it in a modest way that is pretty shameful and Farron is right to say so. I think the policy is wrong but given the policy of non return we should indeed help.
I think that is pretty harsh.
As you say, there is a very good reason for returning to point of origin or, at least, to a safe non-EU location.
But the EU has decided not to take that view. However, we have an explicit derogation from accepting EU policy on matters such as this, so we have chosen to stick to our guns.
I think the activities of the Royal Navy people from the water is admirable. I wish they would put them elsewhere, but to blame us for "contributing to the problem" when we have recommended an alternative course of action is risible.
Or are you saying we should let the migrants drown rather than drop them off in Italy?
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with all of that.
But why do you think the role of the Navy is shameful?
The role of the Navy is not shameful. They are saving lives. What is shameful, as Farron has pointed out, is that those rescued are then dumped in Sicily and are, apparently, no longer our problem.
It's not just Royal Navy saving lives they just make good Tv pictures of course. Numerous passing merchant ships are consistently picking up people. Under the rule of law anyone found in distress at sea has to be rendered assistance whoever they are. You only hear about the "grey funnel line" rescues not about all the others.
The route out of Syria also lies across the main shipping lanes too and from the Suez Canal. The refuges and their traffickers are only too well aware of this.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
Brave statement by Farron. He is a man of means with at least two homes, as a mark of his sincerity he should offer one of his residences, preferably within his constituency, to a large immigrant family.
Mr. Sandpit, Bottas to be winner without the big two (ie third behind Hamilton/Rosberg) at 4.1 on Betfair was one I considered. Massa's been driving well, though, and the Ferraris may be superior in the race.
FPT. I agree with OGH that Kendall can reach voters that other Labour leadership candidates can't. She can also lose them, of course, to say nothing of Party members and TU endorsements. If you think there's a case for three Tory parties (UKIP being the second) please let us hear it
Good comment by IA. Also worth noting that Kendall will only reach these Blairite / Tory-waverers that the other Labour leadership contenders can't if they're not more attracted to Con, UKIP or whoever. Putting yourself in the game is a good start but you still have to win it.
Clearly there are a bunch of rightwingers/UKIP tendency on this site who believe immigrants are all either criminals, scroungers or a drain on society. Sir Nicholas Winton died this week. If he had tried to bring in 669 children these days, you would have all been lined up with the rightwing press, demanding they be refused entry. And then there are the Ugandan Asians. And the whites who fled Rhodesia. Ashamed of the callousness, selfishness and inhumanity exhibited by a large number of people who seem to lack the ability to think "there but for the grace of God go I".
Go straight back to go and pick up your Nobel Peace Prize on the way. BTW how many migrants will you personally be housing in your spare rooms.
The HYS replies to Farron in the Guardian are not at all in agreement with him and dismiss his words in very strong terms.
Had a long chat yesterday with one of the 6 LD MPs not seeking election. He said (there are no she's) that he is TF leaning but has concerns about his maturity but likes NL but feels he is not a real visionary. In fact he is concerned abut the lack of potential leadership in the LDs and feels that NC should have stayed to rebuild the LDs.
I actually like Nick Clegg, but how the hell could he have rebuilt the LDs?! There are no guarantees the others will manage to rebuild, but there are vast swathes of the population who would never even consider the LDs had Clegg still been in place.
Clearly there are a bunch of rightwingers/UKIP tendency on this site who believe immigrants are all either criminals, scroungers or a drain on society. Sir Nicholas Winton died this week. If he had tried to bring in 669 children these days, you would have all been lined up with the rightwing press, demanding they be refused entry. And then there are the Ugandan Asians. And the whites who fled Rhodesia. Ashamed of the callousness, selfishness and inhumanity exhibited by a large number of people who seem to lack the ability to think "there but for the grace of God go I".
MrsB ....apples and oranges. To relate these two issues is quite simply ludicrous. The vast majority are simply seeking a better life rather than threat of death in a concentration camp.
Your posts are normally very good and balanced but this type of hysterical rant based on inaccurate information simply helps no one and least of all those we really need to offer help and protection and rightly so as a compassionate nation.
The HYS replies to Farron in the Guardian are not at all in agreement with him and dismiss his words in very strong terms.
Had a long chat yesterday with one of the 6 LD MPs not seeking election. He said (there are no she's) that he is TF leaning but has concerns about his maturity but likes NL but feels he is not a real visionary. In fact he is concerned abut the lack of potential leadership in the LDs and feels that NC should have stayed to rebuild the LDs.
One of the FIVE then - we can assume you weren't talking to Nick Clegg!
Mr. Sandpit, Bottas to be winner without the big two (ie third behind Hamilton/Rosberg) at 4.1 on Betfair was one I considered. Massa's been driving well, though, and the Ferraris may be superior in the race.
I think I might put my stake money over the bar and just enjoy the race his time! :-)
It would appear that TF is not being practical and is being idealistic and theoretical - as many in his party are. He ignores or just does not want to address the facts:
1. GB is a very small island with empty spaces mainly in Scotland and Wales where there are fewer opportunities for employment.
2. We have hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have not integrated into the UK and who often want their own special laws.
If TF can put forward practical solutions to these problems, then he might find some favour in his proposals.
Watching Farron in action amongst his electorate is always entertaining.
He looks at people directly in the eye, whilst cocking his head to one side, and regularly nodding, as if to emphasise how intensely he is listening to them. He then gets out his pen and a piece of paper, and writes down notes to further stress how much he cares. People seem to leave his presence satisfied that he has listened to them, and that he shares their opinions and concerns.
Then the next person comes along, with completely opposite views, and he agrees with them too.
It will be fascinating to see how he pulls this off nationally.
Mr. Sandpit, fair enough. Sometimes I do have to guess (I sometimes forgo qualifying betting but try to always have at least one bet/tip for the race).
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
What gives us the right to return these people to the "nearest African landfall"? What if the Libyans or Egyptians actively resist us dumping these people (few of whom will actually be their citizens) on them? What if they make it clear they will be left to starve to death on the beaches? Or start shooting at them?
@Moses has pointed out the problems of "sending them back" and they are real. Documents are disposed of. We have a depressingly large number of people employed to identify origin by language, speech patterns, DNA, etc but even if we take the view that someone is from southern Sudan we need the cooperation of the authorities there to return them and that basically costs money.
There really are no easy answers. One view is that the 20th century concept of asylum is simply unworkable in the so much more mobile 21st Century. This is not Jews out of Germany but everyone out of everywhere. A legalistic structure heavily weighed against the asylum seeker is really not fit for purpose in determining who stays and who doesn't. The world is full of horrible places. And the occupants can now travel.
Osborne quite interesting on Marr, seems the Budget will be largely as expected in terms of welfare cuts and cuts to inheritance tax and changes to BBC funding, Redwood will have to wait for a further cut in the top tax rate
The EU has not taken this view. It has asked its member states to share the burden of caring for these people. We have refused. As we are, through our Navy, contributing to it in a modest way that is pretty shameful and Farron is right to say so. I think the policy is wrong but given the policy of non return we should indeed help.
I think that is pretty harsh.
As you say, there is a very good reason for returning to point of origin or, at least, to a safe non-EU location.
But the EU has decided not to take that view. However, we have an explicit derogation from accepting EU policy on matters such as this, so we have chosen to stick to our guns.
I think the activities of the Royal Navy people from the water is admirable. I wish they would put them elsewhere, but to blame us for "contributing to the problem" when we have recommended an alternative course of action is risible.
Or are you saying we should let the migrants drown rather than drop them off in Italy?
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with all of that.
But why do you think the role of the Navy is shameful?
As long as they do not return them to where they came from , the problem will escalate. We are only encouraging the problem.
But that isn't a choice we have: the EU has set its policy (wrongly) otherwise.
So our choices are:
1. Let them drown; or 2. Land them safe in Italy
I think 2 is a better option than 1, even if the second step (landing in Italy) is wrongheaded
I agree , typical EU kneejerk fudge that as ever makes things worse rather than solving a problem.
Interesting end to Marr with his chat with GO and Nick R on the 2015 GE result. GO was saying that what he was finding on the ground was not what was being said by the polls, but on that basis did not expect a majority. .NR said, "in future we should not trust the 'experts' (the polls).
Watching Farron in action amongst his electorate is always entertaining.
He looks at people directly in the eye, whilst cocking his head to one side, and regularly nodding, as if to emphasise how intensely he is listening to them. He then gets out his pen and a piece of paper, and writes down notes to further stress how much he cares. People seem to leave his presence satisfied that he has listened to them, and that he shares their opinions and concerns.
Then the next person comes along, with completely opposite views, and he agrees with them too.
It will be fascinating to see how he pulls this off nationally.
We've already seen how he'll fare nationally. I've no idea why people are saying he is "brave". There's nothing brave about what he's said, it's cynical electioneering appealing to his party faithful. Expect Lamb to say he'd accept 70,000 while looking equally concerned.
The public as a whole may be anti increased immigration but that does not mean we cannot have at least 1 party which supports such a policy. As Farron would be likely to restore the LDs to a largely left of Labour and the Tories stance (except if Corbyn wins the Labour leadership) that would chime in with his overall message
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
The EU has not taken this view. It has asked its member states to share the burden of caring for these people. We have refused. As we are, through our Navy, contributing to it in a modest way that is pretty shameful and Farron is right to say so. I think the policy is wrong but given the policy of non return we should indeed help.
I think that is pretty harsh.
As you say, there is a very good reason for returning to point of origin or, at least, to a safe non-EU location.
But the EU has decided not to take that view. However, we have an explicit derogation from accepting EU policy on matters such as this, so we have chosen to stick to our guns.
I think the activities of the Royal Navy people from the water is admirable. I wish they would put them elsewhere, but to blame us for "contributing to the problem" when we have recommended an alternative course of action is risible.
Or are you saying we should let the migrants drown rather than drop them off in Italy?
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with all of that.
But why do you think the role of the Navy is shameful?
As long as they do not return them to where they came from , the problem will escalate. We are only encouraging the problem.
But that isn't a choice we have: the EU has set its policy (wrongly) otherwise.
So our choices are:
1. Let them drown; or 2. Land them safe in Italy
I think 2 is a better option than 1, even if the second step (landing in Italy) is wrongheaded
I agree , typical EU kneejerk fudge that as ever makes things worse rather than solving a problem.
Strange that your SNP elite is so dog loyal to the EU, isn't it.
TSE That is actually a quite surprising poll, despite the Tory overall majority and EVEL proposals Scotland would still vote No by a 6% margin. Maybe the Scotland Bill has not gone down as badly as the SNP expected? If they do put indyref2 in their manifesto next year for anorther majority SNP government it also risks that being lost and ending the independence struggle for decades if not for good
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
What gives us the right to return these people to the "nearest African landfall"? What if the Libyans or Egyptians actively resist us dumping these people (few of whom will actually be their citizens) on them? What if they make it clear they will be left to starve to death on the beaches? Or start shooting at them?
And the occupants can now travel.
They are criminals trying to enter countries illegally, they should be prevented from entering at all costs, or if they do immediately deported to whence they came or to some island camp , this will discourage others..
Watching Farron in action amongst his electorate is always entertaining.
He looks at people directly in the eye, whilst cocking his head to one side, and regularly nodding, as if to emphasise how intensely he is listening to them. He then gets out his pen and a piece of paper, and writes down notes to further stress how much he cares. People seem to leave his presence satisfied that he has listened to them, and that he shares their opinions and concerns.
Then the next person comes along, with completely opposite views, and he agrees with them too.
It will be fascinating to see how he pulls this off nationally.
I am at the East Midlands hustings on Monday so shall see for myself.
Even Nigel Farage has said that Britain should assist and resettle people with genuine fear of persecution (and like me favours the religious minorities least able to defend themselves or return). The question is how to do this while not encouraging a mass exodus of economic migrants.
This is not particularly an EU issue (thought the frothy lipped Richard Tyndall seems to blame the EU for all the ills of the world!). Non-EU countries in Europe such as Norway and Switzerland, as well as other countries like Canada and Australia are wrestling with much the same issues.
What gives us the right to return these people to the "nearest African landfall"? What if the Libyans or Egyptians actively resist us dumping these people (few of whom will actually be their citizens) on them? What if they make it clear they will be left to starve to death on the beaches? Or start shooting at them?
You can't just dump them on the nearest beach
It needs to be a negotiated agreement with the relevant countries that we will establish processing camps to determine try asylum seekers from economic migrants, pay for the camps and a significant premium as well.
The problem, of course, is what you do with people who fail the asylum claim but refuse to reveal their place of origin. I guess they just stay in the camp (or perhaps a different one) but that's potentially a very difficult situation.
The EU has not taken this view. It has asked its member states to share the burden of caring for these people. We have refused. As we are, through our Navy, contributing to it in a modest way that is pretty shameful and Farron is right to say so. I think the policy is wrong but given the policy of non return we should indeed help.
I think that is pretty harsh.
As you say, there is a very good reason for returning to point of origin or, at least, to a safe non-EU location.
But the EU has decided not to take that view. However, we have an explicit derogation from accepting EU policy on matters such as this, so we have chosen to stick to our guns.
I think the activities of the Royal Navy people from the water is admirable. I wish they would put them elsewhere, but to blame us for "contributing to the problem" when we have recommended an alternative course of action is risible.
Or are you saying we should let the migrants drown rather than drop them off in Italy?
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with all of that.
But why do you think the role of the Navy is shameful?
As long as they do not return them to where they came from , the problem will escalate. We are only encouraging the problem.
But that isn't a choice we have: the EU has set its policy (wrongly) otherwise.
So our choices are:
1. Let them drown; or 2. Land them safe in Italy
I think 2 is a better option than 1, even if the second step (landing in Italy) is wrongheaded
I agree , typical EU kneejerk fudge that as ever makes things worse rather than solving a problem.
Strange that your SNP elite is so dog loyal to the EU, isn't it.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
Unbelievably I agree with you
People smugglers would happily kill their clients or leave them to die as soon as they have got hold of their money.
IF you leave British consulates/embassies to sift potential immigrants then often this is beyond their capability and capacity. If this is done by each EU country, then there will be very little agreement as to how an acceptable immigrant will be defined (even if the EU produces guidelines). Once an immigrant has an EU visa/passport then that individual has freedom to go to any country.
Interesting end to Marr with his chat with GO and Nick R on the 2015 GE result. GO was saying that what he was finding on the ground was not what was being said by the polls, but on that basis did not expect a majority. .NR said, "in future we should not trust the 'experts' (the polls).
Osborne did say he expected the Tories to be in power again in another Coalition, what he failed to predict was the Tory majority which is what the polls were really missing
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
What gives us the right to return these people to the "nearest African landfall"? What if the Libyans or Egyptians actively resist us dumping these people (few of whom will actually be their citizens) on them? What if they make it clear they will be left to starve to death on the beaches? Or start shooting at them?
And the occupants can now travel.
They are criminals trying to enter countries illegally, they should be prevented from entering at all costs, or if they do immediately deported to whence they came or to some island camp , this will discourage others..
Not necessarily. They have a legal right to claim asylum and, on any sensible view, many will indeed qualify because they are from an oppressed minority, victims of ethnic cleansing, gay, a religious convert etc etc. The world is full of people being really horrible to others and we cannot help them all. How do we choose, that is the real problem.
Watching Farron in action amongst his electorate is always entertaining.
He looks at people directly in the eye, whilst cocking his head to one side, and regularly nodding, as if to emphasise how intensely he is listening to them. He then gets out his pen and a piece of paper, and writes down notes to further stress how much he cares. People seem to leave his presence satisfied that he has listened to them, and that he shares their opinions and concerns.
Then the next person comes along, with completely opposite views, and he agrees with them too.
It will be fascinating to see how he pulls this off nationally.
I am at the East Midlands hustings on Monday so shall see for myself.
Even Nigel Farage has said that Britain should assist and resettle people with genuine fear of persecution (and like me favours the religious minorities least able to defend themselves or return). The question is how to do this while not encouraging a mass exodus of economic migrants.
This is not particularly an EU issue (thought the frothy lipped Richard Tyndall seems to blame the EU for all the ills of the world!). Non-EU countries in Europe such as Norway and Switzerland, as well as other countries like Canada and Australia are wrestling with much the same issues.
You're a great admirer of Israel, don't you think the UK should adopt their approach to unwanted migrants ?
The HYS replies to Farron in the Guardian are not at all in agreement with him and dismiss his words in very strong terms.
Had a long chat yesterday with one of the 6 LD MPs not seeking election. He said (there are no she's) that he is TF leaning but has concerns about his maturity but likes NL but feels he is not a real visionary. In fact he is concerned abut the lack of potential leadership in the LDs and feels that NC should have stayed to rebuild the LDs.
I actually like Nick Clegg, but how the hell could he have rebuilt the LDs?! There are no guarantees the others will manage to rebuild, but there are vast swathes of the population who would never even consider the LDs had Clegg still been in place.
Nick Clegg's fundamental problem was that when he started talking, the voters put their fingers in their ears and stopped listening. There is no way you can rebuild the LibDems under a leader who has doused himself with voter-repellent spray.
(Although it does look as though Mr Clegg may have lent that same spray to Mr Farron, if today's story is anything to go by....)
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
What gives us the right to return these people to the "nearest African landfall"? What if the Libyans or Egyptians actively resist us dumping these people (few of whom will actually be their citizens) on them? What if they make it clear they will be left to starve to death on the beaches? Or start shooting at them?
And the occupants can now travel.
They are criminals trying to enter countries illegally, they should be prevented from entering at all costs, or if they do immediately deported to whence they came or to some island camp , this will discourage others..
Not necessarily. They have a legal right to claim asylum and, on any sensible view, many will indeed qualify because they are from an oppressed minority, victims of ethnic cleansing, gay, a religious convert etc etc. The world is full of people being really horrible to others and we cannot help them all. How do we choose, that is the real problem.
You can apply those causes to most world citizens - so should we have to choose?
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
What gives us the right to return these people to the "nearest African landfall"? What if the Libyans or Egyptians actively resist us dumping these people (few of whom will actually be their citizens) on them? What if they make it clear they will be left to starve to death on the beaches? Or start shooting at them?
And the occupants can now travel.
They are criminals trying to enter countries illegally, they should be prevented from entering at all costs, or if they do immediately deported to whence they came or to some island camp , this will discourage others..
Not necessarily. They have a legal right to claim asylum and, on any sensible view, many will indeed qualify because they are from an oppressed minority, victims of ethnic cleansing, gay, a religious convert etc etc. The world is full of people being really horrible to others and we cannot help them all. How do we choose, that is the real problem.
You can apply those causes to most world citizens - so should we have to choose?
Well yes. Either they can all come here or none of them can or we choose. How do we do it? The asylum laws just don't work and on any measure are not a sensible way of identifying those in greatest need.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to
And the occupants can now travel.
They are criminals trying to enter countries illegally, they should be prevented from entering at all costs, or if they do immediately deported to whence they came or to some island camp , this will discourage others..
Not necessarily. They have a legal right to claim asylum and, on any sensible view, many will indeed qualify because they are from an oppressed minority, victims of ethnic cleansing, gay, a religious convert etc etc. The world is full of people being really horrible to others and we cannot help them all. How do we choose, that is the real problem.
David, for me these people have paid money to illegally enter a country. They should be stopped at source or success should be made so bad that it will deter anyone else paying to end up in worse conditions. As usual we are patsies.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
The only way to stop the Med migration is for it to be publicly known that that route leads to death or failure to reach Europe - and that would require some severe action just off the N African beaches.
Whether the people leaving sub-Sahara Africa will believe it is another matter. Also how to stop trans-continental migration over land is another problem - except that it will be more arduous and cost a lot more as there are more border officials to bribe.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to
And the occupants can now travel.
They are criminals trying to enter countries illegally, they should be prevented from entering at all costs, or if they do immediately deported to whence they came or to some island camp , this will discourage others..
Not necessarily. They have a legal right to claim asylum and, on any sensible view, many will indeed qualify because they are from an oppressed minority, victims of ethnic cleansing, gay, a religious convert etc etc. The world is full of people being really horrible to others and we cannot help them all. How do we choose, that is the real problem.
David, for me these people have paid money to illegally enter a country. They should be stopped at source or success should be made so bad that it will deter anyone else paying to end up in worse conditions. As usual we are patsies.
There is a catch 22. It is impossible to claim asylum without entering the country illegally.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the laws of asylum are no longer fit for purpose and we have to start again. Friends of mine earn good money arguing endless cases about asylum and the Convention in the Courts and to what purpose? It is a serious waste of our resources and does nothing to solve the problem.
I think we need to look at this quantatively. Perhaps each country should undertake to take 1% or 2% (more if they choose of course) of their population each year from those they think are the most deserving, wherever they are in the world, to provide for them and give them a genuine chance of building a new life. And that's it. Everyone else who comes here without visas is indeed the criminal that MalcolmG describes and will be treated accordingly.
Getting international agreement on this is probably going to be impossible but what we do now is the worst of all worlds.
@Peston 17m17 minutes ago Everyone I chat with in Athens thinks Greece will vote "no" today. Not scientific. Momentous if true #greecereferendum #Greece
"A London schoolgirl who fled to Syria to join terror group Islamic State has mocked the victims of the Tunisia massacre. Amira Abase, 16, unwittingly told an undercover reporter at the Mail on Sunday that she was "laughing out loud" when asked about her reaction to the shootings, which saw 30 Britons killed. In an online conversation with the reporter, the former Bethnal Green Academy pupil appeared to know little about the recent attack by gunman Seifeddine Rezgui in Sousse.
But when she was told that Muslim leaders were condemning the attacks, she simply replied "LOL" - text speak for "laughing out loud".'
The Greens who were sitting pretty in Scotland, seem to have caught a touch of SLABitis, as they descend into internal infighting over places on the regional list:
Coming on the back of Patrick Harvie and Caroline Lucas playing FFA roulette, these guys are starting to look like their own worst enemies - why do they have a joint leader ?
@Peston 17m17 minutes ago Everyone I chat with in Athens thinks Greece will vote "no" today. Not scientific. Momentous if true #greecereferendum #Greece
Well, if it is no and, somehow, Syrizia's confused histrionics and insistence the other side would give in in that event proves true, it will have been one hell of a bluff from them.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
What gives us the right to return these people to the "nearest African landfall"? What if the Libyans or Egyptians actively resist us dumping these people (few of whom will actually be their citizens) on them? What if they make it clear they will be left to starve to death on the beaches? Or start shooting at them?
I said they'd have the choice - nearest landfall, or taken to Italy and be treated as criminals trying to circumvent EU immigration controls. Their choice.
Getting in a boat to sneak into Europe - and when that goes sour, relying on our humanitarian good natures to stop them from drowning - has consequences. Try sneaking into say Equatorial Guinea without a visa, and see how you enjoy your lengthy stay in Black Beach prison...
People come to Europe because they can rely upon using our liberal sensibilities against us, both in getting here and once they have arrived. Which is a kick in the teeth to those already here and living in poverty. We have a duty to out own poor first and foremost, without acquiescing in the import of more poverty.
Yougov today has a big jump in support for groundtroops v ISIS after the Tunisia killings. 39% support sending them into Iraq v Isis, 39% opposed. 57% support airstrikes v ISIS in Syria, 21% opposed
@Peston 17m17 minutes ago Everyone I chat with in Athens thinks Greece will vote "no" today. Not scientific. Momentous if true #greecereferendum #Greece
Yes is going to win, there is undoubtedly a "shy Yes" vote given that is seen as unpatriotic to vote "Yes".
I'm not sure what happens when there is a Yes vote, Tsipras calls a new election and SYRIZA win again. It will be very much like Scotland having a whole bunch of useless SNP MPs but staying in the Union, no one will know what to do.
@Peston 17m17 minutes ago Everyone I chat with in Athens thinks Greece will vote "no" today. Not scientific. Momentous if true #greecereferendum #Greece
If that happens we are going to see a wave of migration that will make the Med pontooners look like small fry as an EU country falls apart.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
Unbelievably I agree with you
Dear diary,
Today, the impossible happened....
Is it really Malcom ? Has the sun got to him ?
The sun? In Scotland??
Two days ago. For the whole morning. Rained in the afternoon of course.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
Unbelievably I agree with you
People smugglers would happily kill their clients or leave them to die as soon as they have got hold of their money.
IF you leave British consulates/embassies to sift potential immigrants then often this is beyond their capability and capacity. If this is done by each EU country, then there will be very little agreement as to how an acceptable immigrant will be defined (even if the EU produces guidelines). Once an immigrant has an EU visa/passport then that individual has freedom to go to any country.
Why should someone granted access to a particular EU member be given access to the wider EU? They don't get a passport. They get a refuge. The passport is still that of the country they are currently not safe in.
Clearly there are a bunch of rightwingers/UKIP tendency on this site who believe immigrants are all either criminals, scroungers or a drain on society. Sir Nicholas Winton died this week. If he had tried to bring in 669 children these days, you would have all been lined up with the rightwing press, demanding they be refused entry. And then there are the Ugandan Asians. And the whites who fled Rhodesia. Ashamed of the callousness, selfishness and inhumanity exhibited by a large number of people who seem to lack the ability to think "there but for the grace of God go I".
This is a classic case of 'virtue signalling', where someone demonstrates their moral superiority by hectoring others. As someone else said, it is an easy substitute for actually doing good.
Personally, before forming a view on this, I would just like to hear some detail. If Farron wants to make this a credible proposal, rather than just a moral show:
1) Does he propose we do this on a one off basis, or take 60,000 every year? 2) Would he reduce other immigration to make room for the extra 60k, or just increase immigration? 3) If he would reduce immigration elsewhere, where? 4) If he would increase immigration, how would he deal with the extra strains on housing, transport and public services? 5) Given most of these migrants are from Islamic nations, how would he avoid a substantial number being or becoming Islamic fundamentalists, as has happenned with previous generations? 6) How would he make sure the most vulnerable are the ones that get in, rather than the mainly young adult men that dominate the boats? 7) Given that taking these migrants would incentivise the crossing for others, would he increase the quota if more came in future? If so, how high would he go?
I'd be grateful if those supporting the plan, particularly those most disdaining any that disagree, give me their own answers.
@Peston 17m17 minutes ago Everyone I chat with in Athens thinks Greece will vote "no" today. Not scientific. Momentous if true #greecereferendum #Greece
The value does still seem to be on No. Though even the 2.0 at Betfair does not marry well with the 4.2 for Greece to leave the Euro. Surely a No vote makes Greece leaving the Euro inevitable?
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
Unbelievably I agree with you
Dear diary,
Today, the impossible happened....
Is it really Malcom ? Has the sun got to him ?
The sun? In Scotland??
Two days ago. For the whole morning. Rained in the afternoon of course.
Twas a joke. I have been viciously sunburnt in Scotland. In April!
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
Unbelievably I agree with you
Dear diary,
Today, the impossible happened....
Is it really Malcom ? Has the sun got to him ?
The sun? In Scotland??
Two days ago. For the whole morning. Rained in the afternoon of course.
Twas a joke. I have been viciously sunburnt in Scotland. In April!
Me too. But when the sun does come out it is a bit of a shock and people do indeed act in very peculiar ways. Some even take their jumpers off.
@Peston 17m17 minutes ago Everyone I chat with in Athens thinks Greece will vote "no" today. Not scientific. Momentous if true #greecereferendum #Greece
Yes is going to win, there is undoubtedly a "shy Yes" vote given that is seen as unpatriotic to vote "Yes".
I'm not sure what happens when there is a Yes vote, Tsipras calls a new election and SYRIZA win again. It will be very much like Scotland having a whole bunch of useless SNP MPs but staying in the Union, no one will know what to do.
It'll be a huge NO vote. The Greeks have had enough, they'll collapse the edifice.
Town hall chief has been condemned for receiving over £600,000 in payoffs from three public sector jobs.
Penny Thompson left Brighton council last week with a golden handshake worth £269,000 after less than three years in the job.
But it can also be revealed that she was handed £17,000 when her previous role at a quango was scrapped and a massive £330,000 when she took early retirement from a London local authority.
@Peston 17m17 minutes ago Everyone I chat with in Athens thinks Greece will vote "no" today. Not scientific. Momentous if true #greecereferendum #Greece
Yes is going to win, there is undoubtedly a "shy Yes" vote given that is seen as unpatriotic to vote "Yes".
I'm not sure what happens when there is a Yes vote, Tsipras calls a new election and SYRIZA win again. It will be very much like Scotland having a whole bunch of useless SNP MPs but staying in the Union, no one will know what to do.
It'll be a huge NO vote. The Greeks have had enough, they'll collapse the edifice.
Given yes are the voting elderly and it's the less publically popular option I'd expect it to be underestimated like the Tories.
@Peston 17m17 minutes ago Everyone I chat with in Athens thinks Greece will vote "no" today. Not scientific. Momentous if true #greecereferendum #Greece
Yes is going to win, there is undoubtedly a "shy Yes" vote given that is seen as unpatriotic to vote "Yes".
I'm not sure what happens when there is a Yes vote, Tsipras calls a new election and SYRIZA win again. It will be very much like Scotland having a whole bunch of useless SNP MPs but staying in the Union, no one will know what to do.
It'll be a huge NO vote. The Greeks have had enough, they'll collapse the edifice.
It is very strange, we have one of the biggest political events of the year and absolutely no consistent view about how it will turn out.
I think we can say though - if the Greeks are cowed into voting Yes, it will be the biggest win for the EU-rocrats to date. And will embolden their "nothing needs to change" stance against Cameron.
@Peston 17m17 minutes ago Everyone I chat with in Athens thinks Greece will vote "no" today. Not scientific. Momentous if true #greecereferendum #Greece
Yes is going to win, there is undoubtedly a "shy Yes" vote given that is seen as unpatriotic to vote "Yes".
I'm not sure what happens when there is a Yes vote, Tsipras calls a new election and SYRIZA win again. It will be very much like Scotland having a whole bunch of useless SNP MPs but staying in the Union, no one will know what to do.
It'll be a huge NO vote. The Greeks have had enough, they'll collapse the edifice.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
Unbelievably I agree with you
People smugglers would happily kill their clients or leave them to die as soon as they have got hold of their money.
IF you leave British consulates/embassies to sift potential immigrants then often this is beyond their capability and capacity. If this is done by each EU country, then there will be very little agreement as to how an acceptable immigrant will be defined (even if the EU produces guidelines). Once an immigrant has an EU visa/passport then that individual has freedom to go to any country.
Why should someone granted access to a particular EU member be given access to the wider EU? They don't get a passport. They get a refuge. The passport is still that of the country they are currently not safe in.
Schengen, my dear Mark. There are no border checks between mainland EU nations.
@MalcolmG. ( getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
Absolutely. I have worked in many of the African nations at one time or another. The thing that always bemused me was the visa application process. You had to get everything absolutely correct (perfect) or it got returned but the two main common questions I recollect asked this on the application.
1) do you or your company have the means to support you financially and otherwise when in country 2) proof of return ticket booking to demonstrate that you have every intention of leaving
The 2nd always made me chuckle "hell yes!" I certainly intend to go home.
It could take up to 3 months to get a visa, complete security checks and background information plus paying in country sponsors for let's of invitation etc etc. Even then I was treated like shit when I finally arrived in most places. They treated their own people worse though.....
Town hall chief has been condemned for receiving over £600,000 in payoffs from three public sector jobs.
Penny Thompson left Brighton council last week with a golden handshake worth £269,000 after less than three years in the job.
But it can also be revealed that she was handed £17,000 when her previous role at a quango was scrapped and a massive £330,000 when she took early retirement from a London local authority.
What would I give for a line in the budget that made a pay off from any public sector job of more than £100K illegal. No ifs, no buts as our PM likes to say, just illegal.
Yougov today has a big jump in support for groundtroops v ISIS after the Tunisia killings. 39% support sending them into Iraq v Isis, 39% opposed. 57% support airstrikes v ISIS in Syria, 21% opposed
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to
And the occupants can now travel.
They are criminals trying to enter countries illegally, they should be prevented from entering at all costs, or if they do immediately deported to whence they came or to some island camp , this will discourage others..
Not necessarily. They have a legal right to claim asylum and, on any sensible view, many will indeed qualify because they are from an oppressed minority, victims of ethnic cleansing, gay, a religious convert etc etc. The world is full of people being really horrible to others and we cannot help them all. How do we choose, that is the real problem.
David, for me these people have paid money to illegally enter a country. They should be stopped at source or success should be made so bad that it will deter anyone else paying to end up in worse conditions. As usual we are patsies.
There is a catch 22. It is impossible to claim asylum without entering the country illegally.
We are now providing ferries for them with free tickets and welcoming committees to show them to their free lodging , not much of a catch 22 to my mind.
Town hall chief has been condemned for receiving over £600,000 in payoffs from three public sector jobs.
Penny Thompson left Brighton council last week with a golden handshake worth £269,000 after less than three years in the job.
But it can also be revealed that she was handed £17,000 when her previous role at a quango was scrapped and a massive £330,000 when she took early retirement from a London local authority.
Who on Earth signs off contracts where someone seems to be on 2 years' notice after 3 years in the job? Also, how is someone retired (and most likely claiming a large pension) allowed back on staff? I can understand paying someone with experience as a consultant, but not as an employee. Also why did she take early retirement, was it for example to avoid an investigation? There's too many of these stories around local government to think there isn't something of a merry-go-round among the top council jobs, where no-one ever gets fired and those who leave just move on somewhere else in short order on an equally lucrative remuneration package.
I think that Farron's view on this is not a tactical one to gain support from the membership by showing a bit of liberal ankle, but rather one driven by his Christianity. Jesus did have to flee to Egypt with his family, and there are many other stories in the Bible of people fleeing to other lands for either protection such as Joseph. Both Middle Eastern chaos and exodus of people are nothing new under the sun.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
What gives us the right to return these people to the "nearest African landfall"? What if the Libyans or Egyptians actively resist us dumping these people (few of whom will actually be their citizens) on them? What if they make it clear they will be left to starve to death on the beaches? Or start shooting at them?
I said they'd have the choice - nearest landfall, or taken to Italy and be treated as criminals trying to circumvent EU immigration controls. Their choice.
Getting in a boat to sneak into Europe - and when that goes sour, relying on our humanitarian good natures to stop them from drowning - has consequences. Try sneaking into say Equatorial Guinea without a visa, and see how you enjoy your lengthy stay in Black Beach prison...
People come to Europe because they can rely upon using our liberal sensibilities against us, both in getting here and once they have arrived. Which is a kick in the teeth to those already here and living in poverty. We have a duty to out own poor first and foremost, without acquiescing in the import of more poverty.
I think that Farron's view on this is not a tactical one to gain support from the membership by showing a bit of liberal ankle, but rather one driven by his Christianity. Jesus did have to flee to Egypt with his family, and there are many other stories in the Bible of people fleeing to other lands for either protection such as Joseph. Both Middle Eastern chaos and exodus of people are nothing new under the sun.
I think that Farron's view on this is not a tactical one to gain support from the membership by showing a bit of liberal ankle, but rather one driven by his Christianity. Jesus did have to flee to Egypt with his family, and there are many other stories in the Bible of people fleeing to other lands for either protection such as Joseph. Both Middle Eastern chaos and exodus of people are nothing new under the sun.
Pretty sure Joseph was trafficked as a slave.
People traffikers are nothing new either!
And Joseph prospered in Egypt as did his descendants, causing a fair amount of resentment from the locals...
@Peston 17m17 minutes ago Everyone I chat with in Athens thinks Greece will vote "no" today. Not scientific. Momentous if true #greecereferendum #Greece
Yes is going to win, there is undoubtedly a "shy Yes" vote given that is seen as unpatriotic to vote "Yes".
I'm not sure what happens when there is a Yes vote, Tsipras calls a new election and SYRIZA win again. It will be very much like Scotland having a whole bunch of useless SNP MPs but staying in the Union, no one will know what to do.
LOL, that from someone who needs to get his Dad to get his mate to give him a job. Your tongue still working loser.
I think that Farron's view on this is not a tactical one to gain support from the membership by showing a bit of liberal ankle, but rather one driven by his Christianity. Jesus did have to flee to Egypt with his family, and there are many other stories in the Bible of people fleeing to other lands for either protection such as Joseph. Both Middle Eastern chaos and exodus of people are nothing new under the sun.
Pretty sure Joseph was trafficked as a slave.
People traffikers are nothing new either!
Indeed.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
Financier Indeed, the public seem to be taking more notice of the threat and grudgingly accepting the need for military action. Just noticed on p3 there is a slim plurality in favour of groundtroops in Syria, 40-38%, though in Iraq exactly split
Watching Farron in action amongst his electorate is always entertaining.
He looks at people directly in the eye, whilst cocking his head to one side, and regularly nodding, as if to emphasise how intensely he is listening to them. He then gets out his pen and a piece of paper, and writes down notes to further stress how much he cares. People seem to leave his presence satisfied that he has listened to them, and that he shares their opinions and concerns.
Then the next person comes along, with completely opposite views, and he agrees with them too.
It will be fascinating to see how he pulls this off nationally.
I am at the East Midlands hustings on Monday so shall see for myself.
Even Nigel Farage has said that Britain should assist and resettle people with genuine fear of persecution (and like me favours the religious minorities least able to defend themselves or return). The question is how to do this while not encouraging a mass exodus of economic migrants.
This is not particularly an EU issue (thought the frothy lipped Richard Tyndall seems to blame the EU for all the ills of the world!). Non-EU countries in Europe such as Norway and Switzerland, as well as other countries like Canada and Australia are wrestling with much the same issues.
For the UK this is exactly an EU issue. That is why the hypocrisy of the Pro EU Lib Dems is so breathtaking.
The UK should be taking more genuine asylum seekers. We should be living up to our - now lost - reputation as a safe haven for those in need. We were right to take Jews before WW2 (even though actually if you read it the UK government did almost everything init s power to prevent it) . We were right to take the Ugandan Indians in the 70s. We would be right to take a lot more genuine refugees from Syria - and not just the Christian ones in spite of the stupid comments from Farage.
But we will not. We won't because EU membership has destroyed British faith in the fairness of the system and in the ability of the country to continue to soak up more and more migrants. Economic migration has made asylum a dirty word. The failure of other EU countries to deal with economic migration and the chaos we now see at Calais is a direct cause of that and your party has supported the policies which have brought us to this point. That is why the Lib Dems are hypocrites to attack others for not supporting asylum seekers.
Peston may be confused by the way they shake their heads.
The last 7 words are superfluous.
It will be a yes although it is very far from clear what they are saying yes to, whether it is still available and who would then negotiate on the part of Greece.
I think that Farron's view on this is not a tactical one to gain support from the membership by showing a bit of liberal ankle, but rather one driven by his Christianity. Jesus did have to flee to Egypt with his family, and there are many other stories in the Bible of people fleeing to other lands for either protection such as Joseph. Both Middle Eastern chaos and exodus of people are nothing new under the sun.
Maybe so, but why wait 2 months to come to this view ? This problem has been making national headlines, the time to act was back then, I guess Tim was to focused on getting his leadership campaign up and running to focus on this.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
Unbelievably I agree with you
People smugglers would happily kill their clients or leave them to die as soon as they have got hold of their money.
IF you leave British consulates/embassies to sift potential immigrants then often this is beyond their capability and capacity. If this is done by each EU country, then there will be very little agreement as to how an acceptable immigrant will be defined (even if the EU produces guidelines). Once an immigrant has an EU visa/passport then that individual has freedom to go to any country.
Why should someone granted access to a particular EU member be given access to the wider EU? They don't get a passport. They get a refuge. The passport is still that of the country they are currently not safe in.
Because most of the EU countries are in Schengen and so there is nothing to stop them simply moving around Europe.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
Unbelievably I agree with you
People smugglers would happily kill their clients or leave them to die as soon as they have got hold of their money.
IF you leave British consulates/embassies to sift potential immigrants then often this is beyond their capability and capacity. If this is done by each EU country, then there will be very little agreement as to how an acceptable immigrant will be defined (even if the EU produces guidelines). Once an immigrant has an EU visa/passport then that individual has freedom to go to any country.
Why should someone granted access to a particular EU member be given access to the wider EU? They don't get a passport. They get a refuge. The passport is still that of the country they are currently not safe in.
Because most of the EU countries are in Schengen and so there is nothing to stop them simply moving around Europe.
Peston may be confused by the way they shake their heads.
The last 7 words are superfluous.
It will be a yes although it is very far from clear what they are saying yes to, whether it is still available and who would then negotiate on the part of Greece.
Financier Indeed, the public seem to be taking more notice of the threat and grudgingly accepting the need for military action. Just noticed on p3 there is a slim plurality in favour of groundtroops in Syria, 40-38%, though in Iraq exactly split
Will they support any increase in military spending that would be needed to be more effective at such action though, that's what I doubt.
I think we need to return them to their point of origin as I have said. Nothing else works. The flaw in Farron's well meaning Liberalism, much though I respect it, is will we take another 60K next month, the month after and the month after that?
Africa has improved in some respects but is still spinning off hundreds of thousands of people who believe that there has to be a better life somewhere else. They are right. They will have a better life if they make the promised land. It is a difficult issue.
I agree with that, although we will no doubt have to contend with pictures on our screens of dead bodies on Libyan beaches (quite possibly killed by the very people smugglers who sent them on their way in the first place - their very lucrative business stops if we in the West fight them.)
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
Unbelievably I agree with you
People smugglers would happily kill their clients or leave them to die as soon as they have got hold of their money.
IF you leave British consulates/embassies to sift potential immigrants then often this is beyond their capability and capacity. If this is done by each EU country, then there will be very little agreement as to how an acceptable immigrant will be defined (even if the EU produces guidelines). Once an immigrant has an EU visa/passport then that individual has freedom to go to any country.
Why should someone granted access to a particular EU member be given access to the wider EU? They don't get a passport. They get a refuge. The passport is still that of the country they are currently not safe in.
Because most of the EU countries are in Schengen and so there is nothing to stop them simply moving around Europe.
Norway is in Schengen.
Yes I know. How does that change my answer to Mark?
Comments
Fastest lap to me is a mug's bet, anyone who swaps tyres towards the end, or who goes hard>medium could get it. Also the finish line is in an unusual place that means someone could get it as they enter the pits rather than on the track.
So our choices are:
1. Let them drown; or
2. Land them safe in Italy
I think 2 is a better option than 1, even if the second step (landing in Italy) is wrongheaded
Should we be taking genuine asylum seekers - yes. Should we be taking them in larger numbers than we do now - absolutely. But we can't and we won't because we already have a massive immigrant population, increasing hugely every year and we have such rampant abuse of the whole EU migrant issue and such abject failure by our neighbours on the continent to deal with issues like Calais that we are forced to say that we can no longer be the destination of choice for the world's dispossessed.
The real hypocrites are Farron, the Lib Dems and ignorant, malignant non entities like Foxinsox who have helped to cause this problem in the first place and by supporting the mass movement of peoples across Europe and who are now shouting about how nasty people are for not taking yet more migrants.
Had a long chat yesterday with one of the 6 LD MPs not seeking election. He said (there are no she's) that he is TF leaning but has concerns about his maturity but likes NL but feels he is not a real visionary. In fact he is concerned abut the lack of potential leadership in the LDs and feels that NC should have stayed to rebuild the LDs.
"Tim Farron sounds like a small boy saying rude words to attract attention from grown ups.
His remarks are ridiculous and embarrassing to his own party - they are so wrong that they underline why his party was comprehensively rejected by the people of Scotland last month, and in the 2011 Holyrood election."
Sums him up perfectly as viewed by the vast majority of Scots (not just SNP). Still, I expect to win a few pounds at around even money as I bet on him to win months ago-I would be amazed if he did not.
The route out of Syria also lies across the main shipping lanes too and from the Suez Canal. The refuges and their traffickers are only too well aware of this.
I have a solution. Each EU country mans a station within Africa to process asylum seekers. Those whose cases they accept get to live in the country that processed that claim (and ONLY that country - no general right to travel across the EU). I suspect qualifying for asylum would suddenly become quite tricky.
Anybody else travelling into Europe on a rickety craft will be deported back to the nearest African landfall. Alternatively, they can be treated as the criminals they are for trying to get round our entirely valid immigration control. (As someone who has travelled extensively on the continent, try getting INTO Africa without a valid entry visa, and see how well you are treated....)
He is a man of means with at least two homes, as a mark of his sincerity he should offer one of his residences, preferably within his constituency, to a large immigrant family.
Your posts are normally very good and balanced but this type of hysterical rant based on inaccurate information simply helps no one and least of all those we really need to offer help and protection and rightly so as a compassionate nation.
1. GB is a very small island with empty spaces mainly in Scotland and Wales where there are fewer opportunities for employment.
2. We have hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have not integrated into the UK and who often want their own special laws.
If TF can put forward practical solutions to these problems, then he might find some favour in his proposals.
He looks at people directly in the eye, whilst cocking his head to one side, and regularly nodding, as if to emphasise how intensely he is listening to them. He then gets out his pen and a piece of paper, and writes down notes to further stress how much he cares. People seem to leave his presence satisfied that he has listened to them, and that he shares their opinions and concerns.
Then the next person comes along, with completely opposite views, and he agrees with them too.
It will be fascinating to see how he pulls this off nationally.
@Moses has pointed out the problems of "sending them back" and they are real. Documents are disposed of. We have a depressingly large number of people employed to identify origin by language, speech patterns, DNA, etc but even if we take the view that someone is from southern Sudan we need the cooperation of the authorities there to return them and that basically costs money.
There really are no easy answers. One view is that the 20th century concept of asylum is simply unworkable in the so much more mobile 21st Century. This is not Jews out of Germany but everyone out of everywhere. A legalistic structure heavily weighed against the asylum seeker is really not fit for purpose in determining who stays and who doesn't. The world is full of horrible places. And the occupants can now travel.
Even Nigel Farage has said that Britain should assist and resettle people with genuine fear of persecution (and like me favours the religious minorities least able to defend themselves or return). The question is how to do this while not encouraging a mass exodus of economic migrants.
This is not particularly an EU issue (thought the frothy lipped Richard Tyndall seems to blame the EU for all the ills of the world!). Non-EU countries in Europe such as Norway and Switzerland, as well as other countries like Canada and Australia are wrestling with much the same issues.
It needs to be a negotiated agreement with the relevant countries that we will establish processing camps to determine try asylum seekers from economic migrants, pay for the camps and a significant premium as well.
The problem, of course, is what you do with people who fail the asylum claim but refuse to reveal their place of origin. I guess they just stay in the camp (or perhaps a different one) but that's potentially a very difficult situation.
IF you leave British consulates/embassies to sift potential immigrants then often this is beyond their capability and capacity. If this is done by each EU country, then there will be very little agreement as to how an acceptable immigrant will be defined (even if the EU produces guidelines). Once an immigrant has an EU visa/passport then that individual has freedom to go to any country.
(Although it does look as though Mr Clegg may have lent that same spray to Mr Farron, if today's story is anything to go by....)
Today, the impossible happened....
Whether the people leaving sub-Sahara Africa will believe it is another matter. Also how to stop trans-continental migration over land is another problem - except that it will be more arduous and cost a lot more as there are more border officials to bribe.
I think we need to look at this quantatively. Perhaps each country should undertake to take 1% or 2% (more if they choose of course) of their population each year from those they think are the most deserving, wherever they are in the world, to provide for them and give them a genuine chance of building a new life. And that's it. Everyone else who comes here without visas is indeed the criminal that MalcolmG describes and will be treated accordingly.
Getting international agreement on this is probably going to be impossible but what we do now is the worst of all worlds.
Amira Abase, 16, unwittingly told an undercover reporter at the Mail on Sunday that she was "laughing out loud" when asked about her reaction to the shootings, which saw 30 Britons killed.
In an online conversation with the reporter, the former Bethnal Green Academy pupil appeared to know little about the recent attack by gunman Seifeddine Rezgui in Sousse.
But when she was told that Muslim leaders were condemning the attacks, she simply replied "LOL" - text speak for "laughing out loud".'
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-schoolgirl-who-fled-to-syria-to-join-is-mocks-victims-of-tunisia-massacre-10366699.html
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/scottish-greens-in-civil-war-over-holyrood-ballot-irregularity.131024313
Coming on the back of Patrick Harvie and Caroline Lucas playing FFA roulette, these guys are starting to look like their own worst enemies - why do they have a joint leader ?
Getting in a boat to sneak into Europe - and when that goes sour, relying on our humanitarian good natures to stop them from drowning - has consequences. Try sneaking into say Equatorial Guinea without a visa, and see how you enjoy your lengthy stay in Black Beach prison...
People come to Europe because they can rely upon using our liberal sensibilities against us, both in getting here and once they have arrived. Which is a kick in the teeth to those already here and living in poverty. We have a duty to out own poor first and foremost, without acquiescing in the import of more poverty.
See page 2 of todays ST Yougov.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
I'm not sure what happens when there is a Yes vote, Tsipras calls a new election and SYRIZA win again. It will be very much like Scotland having a whole bunch of useless SNP MPs but staying in the Union, no one will know what to do.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11718296/EU-warns-of-Armageddon-if-Greek-voters-reject-terms.html
Personally, before forming a view on this, I would just like to hear some detail. If Farron wants to make this a credible proposal, rather than just a moral show:
1) Does he propose we do this on a one off basis, or take 60,000 every year?
2) Would he reduce other immigration to make room for the extra 60k, or just increase immigration?
3) If he would reduce immigration elsewhere, where?
4) If he would increase immigration, how would he deal with the extra strains on housing, transport and public services?
5) Given most of these migrants are from Islamic nations, how would he avoid a substantial number being or becoming Islamic fundamentalists, as has happenned with previous generations?
6) How would he make sure the most vulnerable are the ones that get in, rather than the mainly young adult men that dominate the boats?
7) Given that taking these migrants would incentivise the crossing for others, would he increase the quota if more came in future? If so, how high would he go?
I'd be grateful if those supporting the plan, particularly those most disdaining any that disagree, give me their own answers.
Penny Thompson left Brighton council last week with a golden handshake worth £269,000 after less than three years in the job.
But it can also be revealed that she was handed £17,000 when her previous role at a quango was scrapped and a massive £330,000 when she took early retirement from a London local authority.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149695/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/10/european-commission-migrant-quota-plan-mediterranean-crisis
I imagine many Britons would say No if they had Peston ask them for a chat
I think we can say though - if the Greeks are cowed into voting Yes, it will be the biggest win for the EU-rocrats to date. And will embolden their "nothing needs to change" stance against Cameron.
I like the idea but you have your numbers fsr too high: 1% of the UK would be 650k, just on refugees.
"Oh, Okhi, then!"
Absolutely. I have worked in many of the African nations at one time or another. The thing that always bemused me was the visa application process. You had to get everything absolutely correct (perfect) or it got returned but the two main common questions I recollect asked this on the application.
1) do you or your company have the means to support you financially and otherwise when in country
2) proof of return ticket booking to demonstrate that you have every intention of leaving
The 2nd always made me chuckle "hell yes!" I certainly intend to go home.
It could take up to 3 months to get a visa, complete security checks and background information plus paying in country sponsors for let's of invitation etc etc. Even then I was treated like shit when I finally arrived in most places. They treated their own people worse though.....
How worried, if at all, are you personally that Islamic
State/ISIS may attempt a terrorist attack here in Britain?
Yes: 75% across all parties, ages, sexes and regions.
Also, how is someone retired (and most likely claiming a large pension) allowed back on staff? I can understand paying someone with experience as a consultant, but not as an employee. Also why did she take early retirement, was it for example to avoid an investigation?
There's too many of these stories around local government to think there isn't something of a merry-go-round among the top council jobs, where no-one ever gets fired and those who leave just move on somewhere else in short order on an equally lucrative remuneration package.
And Joseph prospered in Egypt as did his descendants, causing a fair amount of resentment from the locals...
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/ex-fire-chief-convicted-after-caught-6005310
Ecclesiastes 1:9
"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."
The UK should be taking more genuine asylum seekers. We should be living up to our - now lost - reputation as a safe haven for those in need. We were right to take Jews before WW2 (even though actually if you read it the UK government did almost everything init s power to prevent it) . We were right to take the Ugandan Indians in the 70s. We would be right to take a lot more genuine refugees from Syria - and not just the Christian ones in spite of the stupid comments from Farage.
But we will not. We won't because EU membership has destroyed British faith in the fairness of the system and in the ability of the country to continue to soak up more and more migrants. Economic migration has made asylum a dirty word. The failure of other EU countries to deal with economic migration and the chaos we now see at Calais is a direct cause of that and your party has supported the policies which have brought us to this point. That is why the Lib Dems are hypocrites to attack others for not supporting asylum seekers.
It will be a yes although it is very far from clear what they are saying yes to, whether it is still available and who would then negotiate on the part of Greece.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/greece-holds-decisive-referendum-on-christ-knows-what-2015070399871
As well as a piece rather fittingly mocking of my own stance on the Greece issue
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/pompous-arse-taking-tough-stance-on-greece-2015070299796 Will they support any increase in military spending that would be needed to be more effective at such action though, that's what I doubt.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149736/