NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?
Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:
Yes, you'll salve your conscience with cash and then dump the problem on someone else. Then later you'll gripe about the less well off people who have been dumped on for voting for nasty parties you don't like.
Buy Jobbik.
Since I take it that neither of you are remotely serious in this suggestion, you must both be making a point. The point that you make to me is probably not the one that you think you are making.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?
Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:
It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.
It's also completely impractical to let in hundreds of thousands of these migrants, as then hundreds of thousands more will come. If we then let them in, even more will come and so on. Europe can't take in millions of Syrians without impacting the living standards of the native population, as well as causing a whole host of social problems, not least a surge in the home-grown terrorism risk. As on the Euro, Germany is allowing its war-guilt to let it walk consciously forward into a disastrous policy.
The way to deal with this is to give asylum to the religious and ethnic minorities that are under threat of genocide, and to help Italy, Greece and Hungary to deport the rest.
If it's a high number, it suggests Hungary should be less worried than the UK, given that they won't have to deal with final settlement.
In the first three months of this year (well before the influx really gathered pace) Hungary received more asylum applications than Britain has in the whole of last year:
Germany's attitude on this puts Britain to shame. It is expecting to take 800,000 asylum seekers this year.
What should have happened is that we should have tried much harder to build stable environments on the ground in and around Syria to enable refugees to build new lives there. By failing to invest in that, we now see a wave of migrants seeking something other than a wretched life. I would much have preferred that they did not come. But it is too late now. We have to play our part.
There is a longer term lesson to be learned here. A moral foreign policy is a self-interested foreign policy and encouraging stability around the world will prevent future such waves of migrants and asylum seekers. We need to be less tolerant of oppressive regimes and more ready with humanitarian plans to help those suffering at their hands.
You are still not acknowledging that the UK is already taking 600,000 immigrants a year. Until you do that you point about a the UK been mean and nasty and not doing its bit will seem like rather pathetic pleading of a wealthy metropolitan type.
On your later point you also seem to have forgotten that the UK is currently spending about £13bn a year on overseas aid with, supposedly, the express intention of making life better for people in poor countries.
EDIT Ms Sylvester has also stated that the membership has changed totally since it elected EdM - only 10% remain from GE2010. That's feels a bit OTT to me - but if accurate, that's a complete takeover.
Odd report. In the two very different CLPs that I know well (Broxtowe and Islington North) the membership is up by 50% or so since 2010, but that leaves two thirds as veterans. Contrary to what one might think (or wish) the new members aren't being especially active - there are a few at each meeting, cautiously saying er I'm new, how does this work, rather than stomping in demanding this or that. My concern would not be that they're sweeping in to take over but more that they'll feel they've done their bit by joining and won't do the hard work. We'll see.
As for the supposed coup, you'd think a chief whip (even a presumably outgoing one) should know, but the MPs who I know are in "ruthless pragmatism" mood. If Corbyn proves reasonably successful, fine. If he doesn't, act. Almost nobody wants instant rebellion against the vote of the membership, whatever it is.
How long do you think JC has to succeed before the ruthless pragmatists make their decisions?
Half term or the last possible moment before the next GE?
Who can the Labour Party offer in a couple of years or four years that they didn't offer now?
Yes, you'll salve your conscience with cash and then dump the problem on someone else. Then later you'll gripe about the less well off people who have been dumped on for voting for nasty parties you don't like.
Buy Jobbik.
Since I take it that neither of you are remotely serious in this suggestion, you must both be making a point. The point that you make to me is probably not the one that you think you are making.
Au contraire we're deadly serious, I don't see why you thowing money to a problem dumped on someone else is morally superior.
Germany which you call your guiding light has done just that and now has poor Easterners fronted by the NPD taking to the streets.
Calum, expect tumbleweed on here regarding it , no nuclear warheads and not bad for Scotland.
The significant part for some is that George Osborne pops up again, rather than the SoS for Scotland or Energy. Heir-to-Brown is running the whole government from the Treasury.
I am glad someone else is finally making the point about Osborne behaving lik Brown.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?
Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:
It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.
Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East. It is completely impractical to expect Europe to take in virtually the entire population of the Middle East which, after all, contains a number of really rather rich countries with space to house these people.
Whom we should accept, how many we should accept and who should take them has to be based on something more hard headed than just saying that they are human beings. Of course they are. And we should try to behave with humanity where we can. But not all human beings are necessarily nice or an asset, though, and it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that amongst those arriving are some who we should not be inviting in: Assad thugs or IS thugs or other varieties of thugs (and there are, sadly, plenty of those in the Middle East these days).
And there are human beings in Europe already who also deserve to be thought of by politicians, even to be thought of first by the politicians they elect, some might think.
If it's a high number, it suggests Hungary should be less worried than the UK, given that they won't have to deal with final settlement.
In the first three months of this year (well before the influx really gathered pace) Hungary received more asylum applications than Britain has in the whole of last year:
Germany's attitude on this puts Britain to shame. It is expecting to take 800,000 asylum seekers this year.
more ready with humanitarian plans to help those suffering at their hands.
You are still not acknowledging that the UK is already taking 600,000 immigrants a year. Until you do that you point about a the UK been mean and nasty and not doing its bit will seem like rather pathetic pleading of a wealthy metropolitan type.
On your later point you also seem to have forgotten that the UK is currently spending about £13bn a year on overseas aid with, supposedly, the express intention of making life better for people in poor countries.
Quite so Mr L
The UK has about the same % of foreign born population as Germany.
As for a/fs claim of being less tolerant of oppressive regimes it's rather that policy in Syria, Libya and Iraq which has unleashed the current crisis.
Calum, expect tumbleweed on here regarding it , no nuclear warheads and not bad for Scotland.
The significant part for some is that George Osborne pops up again, rather than the SoS for Scotland or Energy. Heir-to-Brown is running the whole government from the Treasury.
I am glad someone else is finally making the point about Osborne behaving lik Brown.
You mean someone else missing the point? He is Cameron's official deputy. The second minister of the government. He is doing what deputies do. And unlike Blair / Brown it is by agreement.
Cyclefree's point about wealthier countries in the Middle East is a very valid one.
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE are all a lot wealthier than the UK is. If we are to start parcelling out asylum seekers, they should be the first ones to receive them. Especially as they are in the Middle Eastern region, and there would be a better cultural fit.
I accept Assyrians, Yazidis and and Ismailis may face persecution in these places too, so perhaps the EU could take those, but Sunni Muslims should be going there.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:
It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.
Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East. It is completely impractical to expect Europe to take in virtually the entire population of the Middle East which, after all, contains a number of really rather rich countries with space to house these people.
Whom we should accept, how many we should accept and who should take them has to be based on something more hard headed than just saying that they are human beings. Of course they are. And we should try to behave with humanity where we can. But not all human beings are necessarily nice or an asset, though, and it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that amongst those arriving are some who we should not be inviting in: Assad thugs or IS thugs or other varieties of thugs (and there are, sadly, plenty of those in the Middle East these days).
And there are human beings in Europe already who also deserve to be thought of by politicians, even to be thought of first by the politicians they elect, some might think.
It's worth bearing in mind that the UK has already taken in large numbers of refugees over the past 25 years, as well as groups like the East African Asians, prior to that. But, the number of people who live in nasty circumstances and would travel to Europe if they could must run into hundreds of millions.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?
Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:
It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.
Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East.
(snip)
From memory, Turkey's got 2 million Syrian refugees inside it and in camps, nearly half of the refugees from that country. It's alright for us to say we cannot accept them, but we must ensure the countries that do have to house them - especially when they are relatively poor countries - get help.
A slight adjustment to Holmes' dictum sums up the current Labour Party: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whoever remains, however improbable, must be the leader"
Yes, you'll salve your conscience with cash and then dump the problem on someone else. Then later you'll gripe about the less well off people who have been dumped on for voting for nasty parties you don't like.
Buy Jobbik.
Since I take it that neither of you are remotely serious in this suggestion, you must both be making a point. The point that you make to me is probably not the one that you think you are making.
Oh god ive just watched Larry King interview w Morrissey and nothing came close to that!
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?
Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:
It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.
Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East.
(snip)
From memory, Turkey's got 2 million Syrian refugees inside it and in camps, nearly half of the refugees from that country. It's alright for us to say we cannot accept them, but we must ensure the countries that do have to house them - especially when they are relatively poor countries - get help.
Lebanon has more than Turkey and is a much smaller place.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?
Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:
It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.
Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East.
(snip)
From memory, Turkey's got 2 million Syrian refugees inside it and in camps, nearly half of the refugees from that country. It's alright for us to say we cannot accept them, but we must ensure the countries that do have to house them - especially when they are relatively poor countries - get help.
Absolutely, yes. This is where the overseas aid budget should be focused.
Cyclefree's point about wealthier countries in the Middle East is a very valid one.
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE are all a lot wealthier than the UK is. If we are to start parcelling out asylum seekers, they should be the first ones to receive them. Especially as they are in the Middle Eastern region, and there would be a better cultural fit.
I accept Assyrians, Yazidis and and Ismailis may face persecution in these places too, so perhaps the EU could take those, but Sunni Muslims should be going there.
This table rather illustrates the point regarding the disparity amongst middle east states:
Lebanon and Jordan have a staggering number of refugees (~25% of the population) and yet Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait have barely any.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?
Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:
It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.
Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East.
(snip)
From memory, Turkey's got 2 million Syrian refugees inside it and in camps, nearly half of the refugees from that country. It's alright for us to say we cannot accept them, but we must ensure the countries that do have to house them - especially when they are relatively poor countries - get help.
Lebanon has more than Turkey and is a much smaller place.
Does it have more? I'll have a check.
But if accepting that's the case, then the point is even more strongly made.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
FWIW - I think the UK's asylum system is broadly under control. It's only vulnerable when people infiltrate through the tunnel/ferries, and I suspect the numbers will be much higher this year (50,000?) but, still, it's not unrestricted.
By contrast, the numbers entering places like Greece, Macedonia, Hungary and Germany are totally off the scale.
My issue is the UK's mass net immigration through legal means. I would, for example, reinstate primary purpose and end the automatic right to spousal passports - which is a huge source of immigration from the subcontinent. I'd also up the residency requirement for a British passport from 5 years to 8 years.
It also seems to me that the "student" system is widely abused too - with only a small fraction of those who gain visas returning home at the end of their "studies". The rest disappear into the ether.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?
Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:
It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.
Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East.
(snip)
From memory, Turkey's got 2 million Syrian refugees inside it and in camps, nearly half of the refugees from that country. It's alright for us to say we cannot accept them, but we must ensure the countries that do have to house them - especially when they are relatively poor countries - get help.
Absolutely, yes. This is where the overseas aid budget should be focused.
But then you're back in to exactly the same problem as Europe. The Arab countries have been less welcoming to refugees over the years ( see Palestinians ) and the refugees have been less than appreciative guests ( seePalestinians in Lebanon and Jordan )
I wonder how many of the Tory supporters who signed up for their £3 vote for Jeremy Corbyn are this morning feeling outraged that David Cameron has dropped any attempt to renegotiate the social chapter in order to keep a Corbyn-led Labour party on board for an In vote in the EU referendum?
The social and work protections are a very important factor for many. It is why Labour and the Trade Unions have shifted sides in the debate.
The No campaign will be associated with rapracious expoloitative employers slavering over the possibility of shedding employment protections. Not a good look.
Whereas the Yes campaign will be associated with multi nat Big Business where the executives avoid company taxation, push immigration to keep wages down and avoid training their employees, demand the public purse bail out their low wage employees with benefits and then pay themselves huge salaries on which they also minimise their tax bills.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?
Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:
It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.
Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East.
(snip)
From memory, Turkey's got 2 million Syrian refugees inside it and in camps, nearly half of the refugees from that country. It's alright for us to say we cannot accept them, but we must ensure the countries that do have to house them - especially when they are relatively poor countries - get help.
Lebanon has more than Turkey and is a much smaller place.
Does it have more? I'll have a check.
But if accepting that's the case, then the point is even more strongly made.
EDIT Ms Sylvester has also stated that the membership has changed totally since it elected EdM - only 10% remain from GE2010. That's feels a bit OTT to me - but if accurate, that's a complete takeover.
Odd report. In the two very different CLPs that I know well (Broxtowe and Islington North) the membership is up by 50% or so since 2010, but that leaves two thirds as veterans. Contrary to what one might think (or wish) the new members aren't being especially active - there are a few at each meeting, cautiously saying er I'm new, how does this work, rather than stomping in demanding this or that. My concern would not be that they're sweeping in to take over but more that they'll feel they've done their bit by joining and won't do the hard work. We'll see.
As for the supposed coup, you'd think a chief whip (even a presumably outgoing one) should know, but the MPs who I know are in "ruthless pragmatism" mood. If Corbyn proves reasonably successful, fine. If he doesn't, act. Almost nobody wants instant rebellion against the vote of the membership, whatever it is.
How long do you think JC has to succeed before the ruthless pragmatists make their decisions?
Half term or the last possible moment before the next GE?
Who can the Labour Party offer in a couple of years or four years that they didn't offer now?
Jarvis and Umunna? That Clive something or other who has been tipped a few times?
I agree with Cyclefree that we need a clear and hard-headed policy. That needs to take into account the points that she makes, and also the practical difficulties of making a policy work. If huge numbers of people are seeking to escape war zones to come to Europe, realistically we shall have a permanent crisis if we don't give them a viable alternative. The frontier is too vast to make it practical simply to say "We'll take 100,000 a year and everyone else bug off" - they won't. There is a similar debate in America, where a Republican presidential candidate (Walker) has seriously proposed consideration of a wall along the entire Canadian frontier.
Realism also means taking into account the lack of interest of apparently suitable countries like Saudi Arabia to take in huge numbers either. We may well think they should, but we can't force them to.
As I've said before, I don't actually think the problem as normally stated ("how do we prevent vast population movements?") is really soluble - a world with huge disparities of income is not viable, and people will move whether we want them to or not, legally or otherwise. We can only seek to manage the issue by offering sufficiently attractive alternatives to diminish the pressure. The most cost-effective way or doing that is probably to make it worth the while of poorer states to take in large numbers in comfortable refugee facilities lavishly paid for by the EU - there will be a £x at which point the deal becomes attractive for e.g. Tunisia or Morocco, and it's probably less than the £x that it costs to handle huge flows into Europe. Offered a choice of really well-managed facilities in Tunisia or a hazardous trip to an uncertain reception in Hungary or Greece, many refugees may opt for the former.
It might not work as well as we would hope, but I don't see a better option.
EDIT Ms Sylvester has also stated that the membership has changed totally since it elected EdM - only 10% remain from GE2010. That's feels a bit OTT to me - but if accurate, that's a complete takeover.
Odd report. In the two very different CLPs that I know well (Broxtowe and Islington North) the membership is up by 50% or so since 2010, but that leaves two thirds as veterans. Contrary to what one might think (or wish) the new members aren't being especially active - there are a few at each meeting, cautiously saying er I'm new, how does this work, rather than stomping in demanding this or that. My concern would not be that they're sweeping in to take over but more that they'll feel they've done their bit by joining and won't do the hard work. We'll see.
As for the supposed coup, you'd think a chief whip (even a presumably outgoing one) should know, but the MPs who I know are in "ruthless pragmatism" mood. If Corbyn proves reasonably successful, fine. If he doesn't, act. Almost nobody wants instant rebellion against the vote of the membership, whatever it is.
How long do you think JC has to succeed before the ruthless pragmatists make their decisions?
Half term or the last possible moment before the next GE?
Who can the Labour Party offer in a couple of years or four years that they didn't offer now?
Jarvis and Umunna? That Clive something or other who has been tipped a few times?
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of legal immigrants to the UK last year was in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a point but under the Dublin Convention isn't it the case that they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country not choose where they would like to end up?
Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:
It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.
Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East.
(snip)
From memory, Turkey's got 2 million Syrian refugees inside it and in camps, nearly half of the refugees from that country. It's alright for us to say we cannot accept them, but we must ensure the countries that do have to house them - especially when they are relatively poor countries - get help.
Lebanon has more than Turkey and is a much smaller place.
Does it have more? I'll have a check.
But if accepting that's the case, then the point is even more strongly made.
This newspaper makes no secret of its profound disagreements with Jeremy Corbyn on matters of policy. His plans for high taxes and high spending are economic nonsense and his approach on foreign affairs is worrying to say the least.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
FWIW - I think the UK's asylum system is broadly under control. It's only vulnerable when people infiltrate through the tunnel/ferries, and I suspect the numbers will be much higher this year (50,000?) but, still, it's not unrestricted.
By contrast, the numbers entering places like Greece, Macedonia, Hungary and Germany are totally off the scale.
My issue is the UK's mass net immigration through legal means. I would, for example, reinstate primary purpose and end the automatic right to spousal passports - which is a huge source of immigration from the subcontinent. I'd also up the residency requirement for a British passport from 5 years to 8 years.
It also seems to me that the "student" system is widely abused too - with only a small fraction of those who gain visas returning home at the end of their "studies". The rest disappear into the ether.
If 1.5m asylum seekers were a one-off, I don't see much of a problem with distributing them among EU member states. If it becomes 1.5m a year, on an indefinite basis, and rising, then that's insupportable.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
The number of in excess of 600,000 plus asylum seekers. How many was the total for Hungary? Any comparison of figures which ignore total immigration are going to be pretty meaningless.
How many migrants crossing Hungary's borders right now do you think are not going to be asylum seekers somewhere or other?
Antifrank: I'm not trying to make a ose where they would like to end up?
Germany has suspended application of this so far as it is concerned:
It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.
Exactly. So we need a new settlement. But that may also mean accepting that we cannot accept every single person who wants to leave the Middle East.
(snip)
From memory, Turkey's got 2 million Syrian refugees inside it and in camps, nearly half of the refugees from that country. It's alright for us to say we cannot accept them, but we must ensure the countries that do have to house them - especially when they are relatively poor countries - get help.
Lebanon has more than Turkey and is a much smaller place.
Does it have more? I'll have a check.
But if accepting that's the case, then the point is even more strongly made.
The pound is relying on higher interest rates which are less likely for a while. '' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight. "In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''
The pound is relying on higher interest rates which are less likely for a while. '' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight. "In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''
More evidence in favour of an independent City of London. If England leaves the EU the City of London can rejoin, and if England stays they can leave. Businesses that want the opposite to whatever the City of London ends up with can move out to Canary Wharf.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
H
T.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
Ho
A
G
That doesn't mean we should join them in ferrying across to Europe anyone who wants to come, and opening our doors to them.
Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.
My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.
We must distinguish between the two.
If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.
However, that would have to be coupled with a coherent and credible return strategy. And also an equally fair and robust in-filter, including proper reviews of entitlement as close to the point of origin in MENA as possible.
Not the current free for all, which filters by default by automatically rewarding the initiative of those who are strong, wealthy and pushy enough to fathom a route to our doorstep.
The pound is relying on higher interest rates which are less likely for a while. '' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight. "In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''
More whining from senior executives about how its everyone else's fault that they cannot run a good business. Someone ought to point them at Germany and ask them to find out how in the days of a strong and appreciating DeutscheMark German executives managed to build strong businesses based on exports.
Any UK executive who complains about the strength of the pound deserves to have his/her, frequently massive, remuneration reduced by ten per cent every time he or she complains.
More evidence in favour of an independent City of London. If England leaves the EU the City of London can rejoin, and if England stays they can leave. Businesses that want the opposite to whatever the City of London ends up with can move out to Canary Wharf.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
H
T.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
Ho
A
G
That doesn't mean we should join them in ferrying across to Europe anyone who wants to come, and opening our doors to them.
Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.
My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.
We must distinguish between the two.
If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.
However, that would have to be coupled with a coherent and credible return strategy. And also an equally fair and robust in-filter, including proper reviews of entitlement as close to the point of origin in MENA as possible.
Not the current free for all, which filters by default by automatically rewarding the initiative of those who are strong, wealthy and pushy enough to fathom a route to our doorstep.
Germany wants to operate an open-door policy, but then emotionally blackmail other EU states into doing the same.
Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.
My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.
We must distinguish between the two.
If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.
Quite - opening an asylum centre in say a Turkish refugee camp would surely be the way to go. Obviously we can't take all those that would apply, but as you say 30,000 to be taken in and given asylum would surely be 'doing our bit'.
Alot of the Calais bunch are putting our hauliers at risk, and look fundamentally to be a security risk for the country. We should continue to do all we can to stop them coming in.
I can see where you're coming from on this, and I agree entirely.
Offered a choice of really well-managed facilities in Tunisia or a hazardous trip to an uncertain reception in Hungary or Greece, many refugees may opt for the former.
It might not work as well as we would hope, but I don't see a better option.
Well I've had some "vigorous" disagreements with you in the past, but in all fairness I think that you are making an excellent, well-made point here.
This is as if Liverpool St had been closed indefinitely:
.. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
H
T.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
Ho
A
G
That doesn't mean we should join them in ferrying across to Europe anyone who wants to come, and opening our doors to them.
Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.
My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.
We must distinguish between the two.
If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.
However, that would have to be coupled with a coherent and credible return strategy. And also an equally fair and robust in-filter, including proper reviews of entitlement as close to the point of origin in MENA as possible.
Not the current free for all, which filters by default by automatically rewarding the initiative of those who are strong, wealthy and pushy enough to fathom a route to our doorstep.
Germany wants to operate an open-door policy, but then emotionally blackmail other EU states into doing the same.
Yes I broadly agree. However how realistic is it to assume that 4 temporary years would work? Very few even genuine refugees would want to go back. Places like Somalia need to become realistic states instead of failed ones and ISIS needs obliterating. Europe's 'open internal borders' is breaking down. There is a lot to be negotiated. On a related subject i see Farage wants to do his own thing re the referendum.
The pound is relying on higher interest rates which are less likely for a while. '' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight. "In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''
More whining from senior executives about how its everyone else's fault that they cannot run a good business. Someone ought to point them at Germany and ask them to find out how in the days of a strong and appreciating DeutscheMark German executives managed to build strong businesses based on exports.
Any UK executive who complains about the strength of the pound deserves to have his/her, frequently massive, remuneration reduced by ten per cent every time he or she complains.
Quite, not difficult to see how Germans and Japanese companies managed to thrive for so long with appreciating currencies in the last 50 years. A focus on design, reliability, & quality has always helped customer focused manufacturers. There are some British firms who have learned, but too many others have just gone whining to MPs and the CBI.
Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.
My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.
We must distinguish between the two.
If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.
Quite - opening an asylum centre in say a Turkish refugee camp would surely be the way to go. Obviously we can't take all those that would apply, but as you say 30,000 to be taken in and given asylum would surely be 'doing our bit'.
Alot of the Calais bunch are putting our hauliers at risk, and look fundamentally to be a security risk for the country. We should continue to do all we can to stop them coming in.
I can see where you're coming from on this, and I agree entirely.
Thanks. I think the attitude of a lot on the Left on this issue, as well as most of the "chatteri", is unthinking, knee-jerk responsivism: it's as if a flashing red light goes off in their head whenever the topic of immigration is raised; they lose any ability to think rationally with any sense of perspective. Their first (and only) instinct is to make advertise how anti-racist they are, and make sure everyone else knows that's unequivocal.
Of course, it's clear that's more about value signalling and moral differentiation (and probably class, too) than it has to do with anything else. But a lot of these people are in charge - not only in the UK, but right across Europe too.
If we show the correct, and only way to gain asylum here is by say processing in a Turkish refugee camp it might cut down the ridiculous risks the immigrants are taking that lead to the deaths of 70 refugees in the Austrian lorry.
@HurstLlama "Any UK executive who complains about the strength of the pound deserves to have his/her, frequently massive, remuneration reduced by ten per cent every time he or she complains."
@dr_spyn "A focus on design, reliability, & quality has always helped customer focused manufacturers. There are some British firms who have learned, but too many others have just gone whining to MPs and the CBI." Excellent point.
More evidence in favour of an independent City of London. If England leaves the EU the City of London can rejoin, and if England stays they can leave. Businesses that want the opposite to whatever the City of London ends up with can move out to Canary Wharf.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
H
T.
I think he thought I was too stupid to notice he was comparing two different things
Ho
A
G
That doesn't mean we should join them in ferrying across to Europe anyone who wants to come, and opening our doors to them.
Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.
My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.
We must distinguish between the two.
If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.
However, that would have to be coupled with a coherent and credible return strategy. And also an equally fair and robust in-filter, including proper reviews of entitlement as close to the point of origin in MENA as possible.
Not the current free for all, which filters by default by automatically rewarding the initiative of those who are strong, wealthy and pushy enough to fathom a route to our doorstep.
Germany wants to operate an open-door policy, but then emotionally blackmail other EU states into doing the same.
"Offered a choice of really well-managed facilities in Tunisia or a hazardous trip to an uncertain reception in Hungary or Greece, many refugees may opt for the former."
I've only spoken to a few refugees - via a friend out there - but to them Western Europe is like a land of milk and honey.
They might think of their options as (a) a dangerous journey, and yet the outcome will be more of the same in Tunisia and (b) a slightly mroe dangerous journey, but the outcome will be a better life.
Nevertheless very much worth thinking about - indeed exactly the sort of thing our foreign aid budget should be for.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
FWIW - I think the UK's asylum system is broadly under control. It's only vulnerable when people infiltrate through the tunnel/ferries, and I suspect the numbers will be much higher this year (50,000?) but, still, it's not unrestricted.
By contrast, the numbers entering places like Greece, Macedonia, Hungary and Germany are totally off the scale.
My issue is the UK's mass net immigration through legal means. I would, for example, reinstate primary purpose and end the automatic right to spousal passports - which is a huge source of immigration from the subcontinent. I'd also up the residency requirement for a British passport from 5 years to 8 years.
It also seems to me that the "student" system is widely abused too - with only a small fraction of those who gain visas returning home at the end of their "studies". The rest disappear into the ether.
If 1.5m asylum seekers were a one-off, I don't see much of a problem with distributing them among EU member states. If it becomes 1.5m a year, on an indefinite basis, and rising, then that's insupportable.
Which do you think we're going to get?
Personally, I think it'll be the latter - right up until the established order of the EU becomes unsustainable and starts to schism, which may not be an entirely pleasant process.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
One of the main downsides to leaving would be the impact on the City, where many firms have built business models based on the EU financial passports. If the UK was to leave the EU many firms would need to shift their head offices to an EU state to keep operating. However if the UK left the EU but remained part of the EEA, that would go a long way to mitigating the impact on the City.
More evidence in favour of an independent City of London. If England leaves the EU the City of London can rejoin, and if England stays they can leave. Businesses that want the opposite to whatever the City of London ends up with can move out to Canary Wharf.
Why should England lose its historic capital just to benefit global financial businesses?
In absolute terms, maybe. But Lebanon's population is just 4,467,000 and its land area 10400 sq km, compared to Turkey's 79,414,000 and 783,500 sq km respectively. Lebanon has more than 1 refugee per 4 nationals. I'd like to see how the UK would cope with 16 million refugees arriving over and staying over the course of 3 years.
In absolute terms, maybe. But Lebanon's population is just 4,467,000 and its land area 10400 sq km, compared to Turkey's 79,414,000 and 783,500 sq km respectively. Lebanon has more than 1 refugee per 4 nationals. I'd like to see how the UK would cope with 16 million refugees arriving over and staying over the course of 3 years.
Fair enough. In which case, Lebanon needs help. We should do that, if nothing else.
If it's a high number, it suggests Hungary should be less worried than the UK, given that they won't have to deal with final settlement.
In the first three months of this year (well before the influx really gathered pace) Hungary received more asylum applications than Britain has in the whole of last year:
Germany's attitude on this puts Britain to shame. It is expecting to take 800,000 asylum seekers this year.
What should have happened is that we should have tried much harder to build stable environments on the ground in and around Syria to enable refugees to build new lives there. By failing to invest in that, we now see a wave of migrants seeking something other than a wretched life. I would much have preferred that they did not come. But it is too late now. We have to play our part.
There is a longer term lesson to be learned here. A moral foreign policy is a self-interested foreign policy and encouraging stability around the world will prevent future such waves of migrants and asylum seekers. We need to be less tolerant of oppressive regimes and more ready with humanitarian plans to help those suffering at their hands.
Before we got involved there was no refugee crisis. We should have left Assad fully in place.
The pound is relying on higher interest rates which are less likely for a while. '' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight. "In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''
More whining from senior executives about how its everyone else's fault that they cannot run a good business. Someone ought to point them at Germany and ask them to find out how in the days of a strong and appreciating DeutscheMark German executives managed to build strong businesses based on exports.
Any UK executive who complains about the strength of the pound deserves to have his/her, frequently massive, remuneration reduced by ten per cent every time he or she complains.
Fail to invest in plant and machinery - tick Fail to invest in training - tick Fail to tackle poor productivity - tick Fail to invest in R&D - tick Fail to focus on offering high-quality products - tick Squeeze the business until the pips squeak - tick Take massive salary, pension and related benefits - tick Blame everyone else when no-one wants your stuff - tick
God bless our business leaders. And some people think that the private sector should be running everything.
The pound is relying on higher interest rates which are less likely for a while. '' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight. "In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''
More whining from senior executives about how its everyone else's fault that they cannot run a good business. Someone ought to point them at Germany and ask them to find out how in the days of a strong and appreciating DeutscheMark German executives managed to build strong businesses based on exports.
Any UK executive who complains about the strength of the pound deserves to have his/her, frequently massive, remuneration reduced by ten per cent every time he or she complains.
Quite, not difficult to see how Germans and Japanese companies managed to thrive for so long with appreciating currencies in the last 50 years. A focus on design, reliability, & quality has always helped customer focused manufacturers. There are some British firms who have learned, but too many others have just gone whining to MPs and the CBI.
Correct, plus raw material costs and labour are under control as well. However part of the export problem is the decline in demand in export markets. I think we are probably quite good at design. I think short termism in investment might be a problem.
Offered a choice of really well-managed facilities in Tunisia or a hazardous trip to an uncertain reception in Hungary or Greece, many refugees may opt for the former.
It might not work as well as we would hope, but I don't see a better option.
Well I've had some "vigorous" disagreements with you in the past, but in all fairness I think that you are making an excellent, well-made point here.
Except that the 90% failure rate of asylum seekers suggests that the majority of the people knocking on our national door are not going be satisfied with Tunisia, because they are after the good life, not safety.
Notably that making peoples lives a bit better increases the number of migrants, rather than decreases it, because people with means can afford the journey, and to pay for traffickers and other help, people who are bone poor, frankly, can't. So if you have to get over the rather large threshold level of prosperity before the number of emigrants starts to drop, and we aren't rich enough to increase their standard of living enough to do it.
NB Guardian, Budapest has three main train stations. This one is Keleti (Eastern).
Little Hungarians?
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
FWIW - I think the UK's asylum system is broadly under control. It's only vulnerable when people infiltrate through the tunnel/ferries, and I suspect the numbers will be much higher this year (50,000?) but, still, it's not unrestricted.
By contrast, the numbers entering places like Greece, Macedonia, Hungary and Germany are totally off the scale.
My issue is the UK's mass net immigration through legal means. I would, for example, reinstate primary purpose and end the automatic right to spousal passports - which is a huge source of immigration from the subcontinent. I'd also up the residency requirement for a British passport from 5 years to 8 years.
It also seems to me that the "student" system is widely abused too - with only a small fraction of those who gain visas returning home at the end of their "studies". The rest disappear into the ether.
If 1.5m asylum seekers were a one-off, I don't see much of a problem with distributing them among EU member states. If it becomes 1.5m a year, on an indefinite basis, and rising, then that's insupportable.
Which do you think we're going to get?
Personally, I think it'll be the latter - right up until the established order of the EU becomes unsustainable and starts to schism, which may not be an entirely pleasant process.
The question does answer itself. Nonetheless, I would say that the suggestion that overseas aid is focused on countries in the Levant and North Africa is a good one.
UKIP's decision I think again confirms its status as a Fuhrerpartei dedicated to the promotion of Farage's ego rather than leaving the EU. Not sure that is necessarily a bad thing for NO campaign though - it all depends on how that is structured. Farage would have been a bad leader for it, also because he is too divisive with the voters.
People will vote No for a variety of reasons, So, I don't see separate campaigns as being a bad thing.
One of the main downsides to leaving would be the impact on the City, where many firms have built business models based on the EU financial passports. If the UK was to leave the EU many firms would need to shift their head offices to an EU state to keep operating. However if the UK left the EU but remained part of the EEA, that would go a long way to mitigating the impact on the City.
More evidence in favour of an independent City of London. If England leaves the EU the City of London can rejoin, and if England stays they can leave. Businesses that want the opposite to whatever the City of London ends up with can move out to Canary Wharf.
Why should England lose its historic capital just to benefit global financial businesses?
I really like the idea of an independent City of London. Of course, very few people actually live there and there isn't space to build many more dwellings. However, the Vatican shows that it is possible to have a state in which the majority of people working in it are resident in another state. Indeed the Vatican shows that most possible objections to the project could be overcome quite easily.
The City already has its own system of governance and could finance itself very easily through taxes and duties payable by the companies doing business within its borders, income tax and VAT would not be necessary.
Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.
My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.
We must distinguish between the two.
If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.
Quite - opening an asylum centre in say a Turkish refugee camp would surely be the way to go. Obviously we can't take all those that would apply, but as you say 30,000 to be taken in and given asylum would surely be 'doing our bit'.
Alot of the Calais bunch are putting our hauliers at risk, and look fundamentally to be a security risk for the country. We should continue to do all we can to stop them coming in.
I can see where you're coming from on this, and I agree entirely.
If it's a high number, it suggests Hungary should be less worried than the UK, given that they won't have to deal with final settlement.
In the first three months of this year (well before the influx really gathered pace) Hungary received more asylum applications than Britain has in the whole of last year:
Germany's attitude on this puts Britain to shame. It is expecting to take 800,000 asylum seekers this year.
What should have happened is that we should have tried much harder to build stable environments on the ground in and around Syria to enable refugees to build new lives there. By failing to invest in that, we now see a wave of migrants seeking something other than a wretched life. I would much have preferred that they did not come. But it is too late now. We have to play our part.
There is a longer term lesson to be learned here. A moral foreign policy is a self-interested foreign policy and encouraging stability around the world will prevent future such waves of migrants and asylum seekers. We need to be less tolerant of oppressive regimes and more ready with humanitarian plans to help those suffering at their hands.
Before we got involved there was no refugee crisis. We should have left Assad fully in place.
Aw, let's all be nice to Putin's friend. What a surprise.
Given the commissions recommendation, what are the new terms to describe the two camps? Remainders and Leavers? Surely PB can do better than me!
I'm a BeLeaver (To the theme of I'm A Believer)
T sta(y)ins & T leaves?
For the quintessentially British referendum.
The recommendation from the commission seems a strange one. There seems to me to be other alternatives to 'or leave'. One might be 'or join the EEA' or 'become the 51st State of the USA'. I fail to see how simply saying 'do you wish to remain in' is biased. I could see the 'or join the EEA' being quite popular. But if there are 5 alternatives there would never be a decisive vote lone way or the other. If the vote is to say 'leave' then a whole new set of circumstances arise. For instance once any exit terms are agreed and put forward people may suddenly think they might be better off actually staying IN. Irrespective of that, if a referendum rejects the terms of exit or a new arrangement outside the EU then where does that leave us? How many options how many referendums do we want?
Calum, expect tumbleweed on here regarding it , no nuclear warheads and not bad for Scotland.
The significant part for some is that George Osborne pops up again, rather than the SoS for Scotland or Energy. Heir-to-Brown is running the whole government from the Treasury.
I am glad someone else is finally making the point about Osborne behaving lik Brown.
You mean someone else missing the point? He is Cameron's official deputy. The second minister of the government. He is doing what deputies do. And unlike Blair / Brown it is by agreement.
You are missing the point which is that Osborne is tinkering in every department across Whitehall, just as Brown used to: defence, energy, education; not to mention Scotland.
The pound is relying on higher interest rates which are less likely for a while. '' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight. "In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''
More whining from senior executives about how its everyone else's fault that they cannot run a good business. Someone ought to point them at Germany and ask them to find out how in the days of a strong and appreciating DeutscheMark German executives managed to build strong businesses based on exports.
Any UK executive who complains about the strength of the pound deserves to have his/her, frequently massive, remuneration reduced by ten per cent every time he or she complains.
Fail to invest in plant and machinery - tick Fail to invest in training - tick Fail to tackle poor productivity - tick Fail to invest in R&D - tick Fail to focus on offering high-quality products - tick Squeeze the business until the pips squeak - tick Take massive salary, pension and related benefits - tick Blame everyone else when no-one wants your stuff - tick
God bless our business leaders. And some people think that the private sector should be running everything.
We are in accord, Mr. Observer. The question now is how to we change the situation? My view on this is that it needs action by HMG to reform corporate governance/ownership laws, especially to get executives out of the short-term mindset (without that I see no hope of achieving anything else). Changes in tax policy might also help both at the corporate and individual level.
I agree with Cyclefree that we need a clear and hard-headed policy. That needs to take into account the points that she makes, and also the practical difficulties of making a policy work. If huge numbers of people are seeking to escape war zones to come to Europe, realistically we shall have a permanent crisis if we don't give them a viable alternative. The frontier is too vast to make it practical simply to say "We'll take 100,000 a year and everyone else bug off" - they won't. The most cost-effective way or doing that is probably to make it worth the while of poorer states to take in large numbers in comfortable refugee facilities lavishly paid for by the EU - there will be a £x at which point the deal becomes attractive for e.g. Tunisia or Morocco, and it's probably less than the £x that it costs to handle huge flows into Europe. Offered a choice of really well-managed facilities in Tunisia or a hazardous trip to an uncertain reception in Hungary or Greece, many refugees may opt for the former.
It might not work as well as we would hope, but I don't see a better option.
I think refugees should not be given an option to choose between well-managed facilities in Tunisia or Hungary. If they turn up in Hungary they get shipped to Tunisia.
Second we need to say to all those wealthy Arab countries that the problems which are occurring are an Arab problem primarily and it should be the Arab/Muslim world which takes the lead in dealing with them.
We should give refuge to those groups which do face persecution, if not genocide, in the Middle East. Primarily, these are non-Muslim groups: Christians, Yazidis etc. Personally, I think it a catastrophe that Christianity will be largely eliminated from its birthplace but that seems to be what will happen and we owe it to those remaining Christian communities to give them shelter if we cannot protect them in their homelands.
This problem will resolve itself when - and if - the Arab/Muslim world learns to live in peace with itself and with its neighbours and to create viable political entities that don't threaten all and sundry. That could be some time. But in the meanwhile we are under no obligation to allow in the entire population from a violent, extremist-ridden and utterly dysfunctional part of the world. Only hard-headed thought will help deal with this not sentimentality.
And as for Germany: if she tears up the rules, she can hardly be surprised if others do the same. The Middle Eastern refugees are not like the Germans expelled from their homelands at the end of WW2 and integrating those was one hell of a task. What is happening now is of a different order.
Calum, expect tumbleweed on here regarding it , no nuclear warheads and not bad for Scotland.
The significant part for some is that George Osborne pops up again, rather than the SoS for Scotland or Energy. Heir-to-Brown is running the whole government from the Treasury.
I am glad someone else is finally making the point about Osborne behaving lik Brown.
You mean someone else missing the point? He is Cameron's official deputy. The second minister of the government. He is doing what deputies do. And unlike Blair / Brown it is by agreement.
You are missing the point which is that Osborne is tinkering in every department across Whitehall, just as Brown used to: defence, energy, education; not to mention Scotland.
No - thats his job. He is second in command. Officially. Plus he was in Glasgow yesterday. Plus as Chancellor its his money (!) - yes I know our taxes - his tax policy that is behind this field.
BTW its a gas field and not as badly affected by low prices as oil and unfortunately it looks like a couple of other gas fields will close before this one opens. My reading of it suggests this new field is only borderline profitable at current price levels. Its only because its been on the go since 2008 and decisions taken last year that its going ahead now.
Hungary got something like 34,000 migrants in July alone (Britain got 25,000 asylum seekers in the whole of the last year). The August figure will be close to double that. Its population is less than a sixth of Britain's. It is far poorer than Britain. The scale of problem that it is facing is an order of magnitude more challenging than anything that Britain is looking at.
And for all that, its approach to these migrants is hamfisted, counterproductive and plain mean.
FWIW - I think the UK's asylum system is broadly under control. It's only vulnerable when people infiltrate through the tunnel/ferries, and I suspect the numbers will be much higher this year (50,000?) but, still, it's not unrestricted.
By contrast, the numbers entering places like Greece, Macedonia, Hungary and Germany are totally off the scale.
My issue is the UK's mass net immigration through legal means. I would, for example, reinstate primary purpose and end the automatic right to spousal passports - which is a huge source of immigration from the subcontinent. I'd also up the residency requirement for a British passport from 5 years to 8 years.
It also seems to me that the "student" system is widely abused too - with only a small fraction of those who gain visas returning home at the end of their "studies". The rest disappear into the ether.
If 1.5m asylum seekers were a one-off, I don't see much of a problem with distributing them among EU member states. If it becomes 1.5m a year, on an indefinite basis, and rising, then that's insupportable.
Which do you think we're going to get?
Personally, I think it'll be the latter - right up until the established order of the EU becomes unsustainable and starts to schism, which may not be an entirely pleasant process.
The question does answer itself. Nonetheless, I would say that the suggestion that overseas aid is focused on countries in the Levant and North Africa is a good one.
We should use aid more (not entirely but more) as an instrument of policy than we do now. I think we have moved in that direction but as we see the problems change then our aid should change. I think the use of our military should be classed as and paid from aid more and never mind official UN definitions. The current problems show that aid is needed and we should be more hard nosed about what we do with it.
Who will be at conference? The obvious point is that it represents a radically different set of people to the far larger electorate that has just been participating in the leadership elections. The “registered supporters” are not represented at all, and nor are the influx of new full members who joined after the General Election. Many CLPs will have elected their delegates before the election and certainly before “Corbyn-mania” started. There is no reason to suspect that the CLP delegates, who hold 50% of the votes, will be any different in political complexion to previous years, when they have a fairly strong record of giving majority backing to the moderate wing of the party on internal elections and other key votes.
Quite a lot of CLPs won’t have sent a delegate on the basis of cost and the assumption not much of any excitement was going to happen! The remaining 50% of votes are held by trade unions and other affiliates, giving them about one and two thirds times the influence they have in the leadership ballot. The union delegates are there to do a job of work – to vote in line with the policy book of positions determined at their own policy conferences, and to ensure their union’s voice is heard in debates that matter to their members. Where they have any flexibility, the leaders of union delegations will do pragmatic deals, trading their block of votes with the leader’s office for other policy or selection concessions.
"This problem will resolve itself when - and if - the Arab/Muslim world learns to live in peace with itself and with its neighbours and to create viable political entities that don't threaten all and sundry. That could be some time."
The understatement of the week award goes to CycleFree.
I can't see this idea of 'well-managed facilities' in Turkey or Tunisia or elsewhere for would-be asylum seekers is a runner. Why on earth would the governments of Turkey or Tunisia agree? It would be an invitation to very large numbers of migrants to head for these camps; after the Western European countries had accepted (say) 10% of them, what would happen to the other 90%? They'd become an immediate and huge problem for Turkey or Tunisia.
I can't see this idea of 'well-managed facilities' in Turkey or Tunisia or elsewhere for would-be asylum seekers is a runner. Why on earth would the governments of Turkey or Tunisia agree? It would be an invitation to very large numbers of migrants to head for these camps; after the Western European countries had accepted (say) 10% of them, what would happen to the other 90%? They'd become an immediate and huge problem for Turkey or Tunisia.
Not to mention that people don't generally aspire to live in "facilities". The "free cities" idea is more of a runner, if we're looking for an offshore solution.
I can't see this idea of 'well-managed facilities' in Turkey or Tunisia or elsewhere for would-be asylum seekers is a runner. Why on earth would the governments of Turkey or Tunisia agree? It would be an invitation to very large numbers of migrants to head for these camps; after the Western European countries had accepted (say) 10% of them, what would happen to the other 90%? They'd become an immediate and huge problem for Turkey or Tunisia.
Why on earth would the governments of Turkey or Tunisia agree?
We should use aid more (not entirely but more) as an instrument of policy than we do now. I think we have moved in that direction but as we see the problems change then our aid should change. I think the use of our military should be classed as and paid from aid more and never mind official UN definitions. The current problems show that aid is needed and we should be more hard nosed about what we do with it.
Use aid as an instrument of policy? Spend the DfId budget in ways that benefit the UK? Pay for military activities and kit from the DfID money? People will be fainting all over Notting Hill at such outrageous suggestions. Justine Greening will probably have a fit of the vapours (but only if her civil servants tell her it's OK). I afraid if you persist in such a line of thought Cameron will put a black mark against your name.
I can't see this idea of 'well-managed facilities' in Turkey or Tunisia or elsewhere for would-be asylum seekers is a runner. Why on earth would the governments of Turkey or Tunisia agree? It would be an invitation to very large numbers of migrants to head for these camps; after the Western European countries had accepted (say) 10% of them, what would happen to the other 90%? They'd become an immediate and huge problem for Turkey or Tunisia.
Not to mention that people don't generally aspire to live in "facilities". The "free cities" idea is more of a runner, if we're looking for an offshore solution.
Their aspiration is surely to flee the place from which they are are in mortal danger?
Offered a choice of really well-managed facilities in Tunisia or a hazardous trip to an uncertain reception in Hungary or Greece, many refugees may opt for the former.
It might not work as well as we would hope, but I don't see a better option.
Well I've had some "vigorous" disagreements with you in the past, but in all fairness I think that you are making an excellent, well-made point here.
Except that the 90% failure rate of asylum seekers suggests that the majority of the people knocking on our national door are not going be satisfied with Tunisia, because they are after the good life, not safety.
Notably that making peoples lives a bit better increases the number of migrants, rather than decreases it, because people with means can afford the journey, and to pay for traffickers and other help, people who are bone poor, frankly, can't. So if you have to get over the rather large threshold level of prosperity before the number of emigrants starts to drop, and we aren't rich enough to increase their standard of living enough to do it.
Your point - or the one in the article - is a good one but only seems to make the problem worse. However - if there is relative wealth then why risk death? If relative intelligence - why be taken in by people traffickers? Clearly the issue is complex, but the forces driving it are huge. No one country is going to solve it.
"This problem will resolve itself when - and if - the Arab/Muslim world learns to live in peace with itself and with its neighbours and to create viable political entities that don't threaten all and sundry. That could be some time."
The understatement of the week award goes to CycleFree.
It should win the Understatement of the Decade award.
Except that the 90% failure rate of asylum seekers suggests that the majority of the people knocking on our national door are not going be satisfied with Tunisia, because they are after the good life, not safety.
You make excellent points as well.
I think that we have to ultimately adopt the "Big Stick" because its a tough world and we can't fix it's problems very quickly, even if we had the help of our so-called "European "Friends".
However, offering the "Carrot" of a refuge in, say, North Africa gives us the moral and political cover to wield the stick when we have to.
The pound is relying on higher interest rates which are less likely for a while. '' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight. "In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''
More whining from senior executives about how its everyone else's fault that they cannot run a good business. Someone ought to point them at Germany and ask them to find out how in the days of a strong and appreciating DeutscheMark German executives managed to build strong businesses based on exports.
Any UK executive who complains about the strength of the pound deserves to have his/her, frequently massive, remuneration reduced by ten per cent every time he or she complains.
Fail to invest in plant and machinery - tick Fail to invest in training - tick Fail to tackle poor productivity - tick Fail to invest in R&D - tick Fail to focus on offering high-quality products - tick Squeeze the business until the pips squeak - tick Take massive salary, pension and related benefits - tick Blame everyone else when no-one wants your stuff - tick
God bless our business leaders. And some people think that the private sector should be running everything.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11821822/Germany-drops-EU-rules-to-allow-in-Syrian-refugees.html
It's completely impractical to expect Italy, Greece and Hungary to bear all of this by themselves in any case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34113080
The way to deal with this is to give asylum to the religious and ethnic minorities that are under threat of genocide, and to help Italy, Greece and Hungary to deport the rest.
On your later point you also seem to have forgotten that the UK is currently spending about £13bn a year on overseas aid with, supposedly, the express intention of making life better for people in poor countries.
Germany which you call your guiding light has done just that and now has poor Easterners fronted by the NPD taking to the streets.
Whom we should accept, how many we should accept and who should take them has to be based on something more hard headed than just saying that they are human beings. Of course they are. And we should try to behave with humanity where we can. But not all human beings are necessarily nice or an asset, though, and it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that amongst those arriving are some who we should not be inviting in: Assad thugs or IS thugs or other varieties of thugs (and there are, sadly, plenty of those in the Middle East these days).
And there are human beings in Europe already who also deserve to be thought of by politicians, even to be thought of first by the politicians they elect, some might think.
The UK has about the same % of foreign born population as Germany.
As for a/fs claim of being less tolerant of oppressive regimes it's rather that policy in Syria, Libya and Iraq which has unleashed the current crisis.
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE are all a lot wealthier than the UK is. If we are to start parcelling out asylum seekers, they should be the first ones to receive them. Especially as they are in the Middle Eastern region, and there would be a better cultural fit.
I accept Assyrians, Yazidis and and Ismailis may face persecution in these places too, so perhaps the EU could take those, but Sunni Muslims should be going there.
Lebanon and Jordan have a staggering number of refugees (~25% of the population) and yet Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait have barely any.
But if accepting that's the case, then the point is even more strongly made.
Edit: according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War , you are wrong. As of March, Turkey had 1,758,092 and Lebanon 1,196,560.
By contrast, the numbers entering places like Greece, Macedonia, Hungary and Germany are totally off the scale.
My issue is the UK's mass net immigration through legal means. I would, for example, reinstate primary purpose and end the automatic right to spousal passports - which is a huge source of immigration from the subcontinent. I'd also up the residency requirement for a British passport from 5 years to 8 years.
It also seems to me that the "student" system is widely abused too - with only a small fraction of those who gain visas returning home at the end of their "studies". The rest disappear into the ether.
Realism also means taking into account the lack of interest of apparently suitable countries like Saudi Arabia to take in huge numbers either. We may well think they should, but we can't force them to.
As I've said before, I don't actually think the problem as normally stated ("how do we prevent vast population movements?") is really soluble - a world with huge disparities of income is not viable, and people will move whether we want them to or not, legally or otherwise. We can only seek to manage the issue by offering sufficiently attractive alternatives to diminish the pressure. The most cost-effective way or doing that is probably to make it worth the while of poorer states to take in large numbers in comfortable refugee facilities lavishly paid for by the EU - there will be a £x at which point the deal becomes attractive for e.g. Tunisia or Morocco, and it's probably less than the £x that it costs to handle huge flows into Europe. Offered a choice of really well-managed facilities in Tunisia or a hazardous trip to an uncertain reception in Hungary or Greece, many refugees may opt for the former.
It might not work as well as we would hope, but I don't see a better option.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/01/icelanders-call-on-government-to-take-in-more-syrian-refugees
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/sticksy/cocktails_for_corbyn
Pint of Bitter loser please.
http://labourlist.org/2015/09/were-strangling-our-party-with-structures-processes-and-bureaucracy/ by Liz Kendall
http://labourlist.org/2015/09/i-will-win-the-2020-general-election-says-burnham/
'' "The survey indicates that UK manufacturers are continuing to find life very challenging as they are being held back, particularly by weak foreign orders," said Howard Archer from IHS Global Insight.
"In particular, sterling's strength - particularly against the euro - is seemingly constraining UK manufacturers." ''
Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.
My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.
We must distinguish between the two.
If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.
However, that would have to be coupled with a coherent and credible return strategy. And also an equally fair and robust in-filter, including proper reviews of entitlement as close to the point of origin in MENA as possible.
Not the current free for all, which filters by default by automatically rewarding the initiative of those who are strong, wealthy and pushy enough to fathom a route to our doorstep.
http://www.cameronsbrewery.com/brands/
Any UK executive who complains about the strength of the pound deserves to have his/her, frequently massive, remuneration reduced by ten per cent every time he or she complains.
Look: I have no issue with temporarily accommodating our fair share of desperate people who are genuinely fleeing savage wars and conflict. The UK has a proud history of this.
My contention is that a large proportion of these migrants are, in fact, fit, healthy, ambitious - and, also, quite aggressive - young men who are trying to take advantage of the confusion of the above to force our borders. Whereupon they intend to disappear.
We must distinguish between the two.
If I was satisfied our borders were robust, and migration numbers were under control, I'd have no problem with providing temporary refuge for up to 4 years for, say, 20-30,000 refugees this year.
However, that would have to be coupled with a coherent and credible return strategy. And also an equally fair and robust in-filter, including proper reviews of entitlement as close to the point of origin in MENA as possible.
Not the current free for all, which filters by default by automatically rewarding the initiative of those who are strong, wealthy and pushy enough to fathom a route to our doorstep.
Germany wants to operate an open-door policy, but then emotionally blackmail other EU states into doing the same.
Alot of the Calais bunch are putting our hauliers at risk, and look fundamentally to be a security risk for the country. We should continue to do all we can to stop them coming in.
I can see where you're coming from on this, and I agree entirely.
*Shudder*
He can't even win a leadership election
Yes I broadly agree. However how realistic is it to assume that 4 temporary years would work? Very few even genuine refugees would want to go back.
Places like Somalia need to become realistic states instead of failed ones and ISIS needs obliterating. Europe's 'open internal borders' is breaking down. There is a lot to be negotiated.
On a related subject i see Farage wants to do his own thing re the referendum.
Of course, it's clear that's more about value signalling and moral differentiation (and probably class, too) than it has to do with anything else. But a lot of these people are in charge - not only in the UK, but right across Europe too.
@dr_spyn "A focus on design, reliability, & quality has always helped customer focused manufacturers. There are some British firms who have learned, but too many others have just gone whining to MPs and the CBI."
Excellent point.
Great post Sean.
I've only spoken to a few refugees - via a friend out there - but to them Western Europe is like a land of milk and honey.
They might think of their options as (a) a dangerous journey, and yet the outcome will be more of the same in Tunisia and (b) a slightly mroe dangerous journey, but the outcome will be a better life.
Nevertheless very much worth thinking about - indeed exactly the sort of thing our foreign aid budget should be for.
Personally, I think it'll be the latter - right up until the established order of the EU becomes unsustainable and starts to schism, which may not be an entirely pleasant process.
Fail to invest in training - tick
Fail to tackle poor productivity - tick
Fail to invest in R&D - tick
Fail to focus on offering high-quality products - tick
Squeeze the business until the pips squeak - tick
Take massive salary, pension and related benefits - tick
Blame everyone else when no-one wants your stuff - tick
God bless our business leaders. And some people think that the private sector should be running everything.
I think we are probably quite good at design. I think short termism in investment might be a problem.
These articles makes a number of good points
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/africa-is-getting-richer-so-expect-more-migrants/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/young-men-in-senegal-join-migrant-wave-despite-growing-prosperity-at-home-1434127244
Notably that making peoples lives a bit better increases the number of migrants, rather than decreases it, because people with means can afford the journey, and to pay for traffickers and other help, people who are bone poor, frankly, can't. So if you have to get over the rather large threshold level of prosperity before the number of emigrants starts to drop, and we aren't rich enough to increase their standard of living enough to do it.
The City already has its own system of governance and could finance itself very easily through taxes and duties payable by the companies doing business within its borders, income tax and VAT would not be necessary.
I fail to see how simply saying 'do you wish to remain in' is biased.
I could see the 'or join the EEA' being quite popular. But if there are 5 alternatives there would never be a decisive vote lone way or the other.
If the vote is to say 'leave' then a whole new set of circumstances arise. For instance once any exit terms are agreed and put forward people may suddenly think they might be better off actually staying IN. Irrespective of that, if a referendum rejects the terms of exit or a new arrangement outside the EU then where does that leave us? How many options how many referendums do we want?
Second we need to say to all those wealthy Arab countries that the problems which are occurring are an Arab problem primarily and it should be the Arab/Muslim world which takes the lead in dealing with them.
We should give refuge to those groups which do face persecution, if not genocide, in the Middle East. Primarily, these are non-Muslim groups: Christians, Yazidis etc. Personally, I think it a catastrophe that Christianity will be largely eliminated from its birthplace but that seems to be what will happen and we owe it to those remaining Christian communities to give them shelter if we cannot protect them in their homelands.
This problem will resolve itself when - and if - the Arab/Muslim world learns to live in peace with itself and with its neighbours and to create viable political entities that don't threaten all and sundry. That could be some time. But in the meanwhile we are under no obligation to allow in the entire population from a violent, extremist-ridden and utterly dysfunctional part of the world. Only hard-headed thought will help deal with this not sentimentality.
And as for Germany: if she tears up the rules, she can hardly be surprised if others do the same. The Middle Eastern refugees are not like the Germans expelled from their homelands at the end of WW2 and integrating those was one hell of a task. What is happening now is of a different order.
BTW its a gas field and not as badly affected by low prices as oil and unfortunately it looks like a couple of other gas fields will close before this one opens. My reading of it suggests this new field is only borderline profitable at current price levels. Its only because its been on the go since 2008 and decisions taken last year that its going ahead now.
The understatement of the week award goes to CycleFree.
Our political elite haven't a clue.
Why on earth do ours ?
I think that we have to ultimately adopt the "Big Stick" because its a tough world and we can't fix it's problems very quickly, even if we had the help of our so-called "European "Friends".
However, offering the "Carrot" of a refuge in, say, North Africa gives us the moral and political cover to wield the stick when we have to.
new thread
She would be going down the same strategy of Germany,like I said,our elite politicians haven't a clue.