On the migrant crisis, I'm somewhat bemused by the criticism of the UK from some of our EU friends. Given that the UK didn't get involved in Schengen, thanks to Maggie, who argued trenchantly against it at the time, it's a bit rich to criticise the UK for not wanting to shoulder its 'fair share' of a problem which Schengen has greatly exacerbated.
Incidentally, if you want a laugh, there's always some academic at the LSE to provide one:
Indeed. It's something of a damning indictment of the European project that the two best pieces of EU policy on the matter have been the opt-out of Schengen and the opt-out of the Eurozone.
Mr. CD13, there's a petition for the BBC to say refugees rather than migrants.
Migrants is more accurate. There may well be a large amount of refugees in amongst the migrants, but it's a subset.
Criminals is more accurate. They are evading our border controls.
None of them are fleeing persecution in France that would justify our granting them asylum.
Correct. If we were to want to help out France that would be a different question. However that option is hamstrung by the scale and nature of the problem. There is no reason to believe that if we accepted x% of France's or whoever's problem that it would not end up as 2x or 10x. Europe's problem with this is not really that it is the EU or Schengen but that it is a continental land mass which makes it difficult to prevent these movements across borders.
Yvette Cooper said that we could take in 10,000 refugees in a month. Which we unarguably could do. And should do.
Please explain why and also how you strictly define a refugee.
I have a dayjob which calls, so I can't argue indefinitely today.
In brief, there are vast numbers of people fleeing Syria into Europe. We (western countries) should have done more to help them on the ground but we did not, so they are leaving. Given that millions have been displaced in Syria, most of those fleeing will be genuine refugees. We cannot leave those EU countries closest to the action to bear the brunt of this without our help. So we must play our part. We are one of the wealthiest countries in Europe with a long tradition of accepting refugees. We should continue that tradition.
We should of course do far more on the ground in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan etc to help refugees build a life there and to do our best to dissuade others from following. That is a separate discussion.
On the migrant crisis, I'm somewhat bemused by the criticism of the UK from some of our EU friends. Given that the UK didn't get involved in Schengen, thanks to Maggie, who argued trenchantly against it at the time, it's a bit rich to criticise the UK for not wanting to shoulder its 'fair share' of a problem which Schengen has greatly exacerbated.
Incidentally, if you want a laugh, there's always some academic at the LSE to provide one:
"Well, that's also true for JC. And the reason is that class-based politics, which is what Labour was founded to promote, are dead and gone (the rich have won, totally and utterly - the rest of us live by their grace & favour). What we are seeing is the refeudalization of capitalist society."
I sat in a cafe outside the casino in Monte Carlo yesterday and considered that I've never been anywhere where I've seen a more conspicuous show of wealth. It was like a fashion show for cars with a backdrop of a harbour bulging with private yachts.
I wondered why such ostentation wasn't bad form anymore?
The only thing I could come up with was that in the past big money was often inherited.The new money is largely self made. The Arabs discoved oil the internet threw up billionaires the Russians their oligarchs and any talented sportsman or media entertainer worth their salt made millions overnight. Not attractive in some ways but more of a meritocricy.
I think such ostentation is tremendously bad form. There is an Italian phrase "sputare nella faccia della poverta" (spitting in the face of poverty) which sums up my view. When one has such wealth, one has an obligation to use it wisely, not simply to spend on oneself and gloat and congratulate oneself on one's own cleverness, which owes more to luck and the contributions of others than rich people sometimes like to admit.
"Well, that's also true for JC. And the reason is that class-based politics, which is what Labour was founded to promote, are dead and gone (the rich have won, totally and utterly - the rest of us live by their grace & favour). What we are seeing is the refeudalization of capitalist society."
I sat in a cafe outside the casino in Monte Carlo yesterday and considered that I've never been anywhere where I've seen a more conspicuous show of wealth. It was like a fashion show for cars with a backdrop of a harbour bulging with private yachts.
I wondered why such ostentation wasn't bad form anymore?
The only thing I could come up with was that in the past big money was often inherited.The new money is largely self made. The Arabs discoved oil the internet threw up billionaires the Russians their oligarchs and any talented sportsman or media entertainer worth their salt made millions overnight. Not attractive in some ways but more of a meritocricy.
I don't see how oil being found in your country or ripping off the Russian state demonstrate the merit of those benefitting from it.
O/T Especially interesting for those with Daughters and Grandaughters.
"Tragically, what has been “enculturated” into our 18-year-old girls is that they are now so sexually empowered they can take part in the Line Up with no consequences to their emotional or mental health. "
Regarding the migrant crisis- this is the most pressing issue Europe has faced since the second world war. Forget China, Greece, the Euro, the UK's referendum- these pale into insignificance against dealing with the mass influx of migrants.
This issue should be dominating the Labour leadership debate- not the anachronistic throwback to 1970's student politics that Corbyn represents. Labour is just making itself irrelevant- so well done to Yvette yesterday for speaking about it. If I hadn't voted for Andy already, she would have got my vote- just for that.
As to our own Govt- I really do not know what the hell they are doing to engage with it at all, apart from sticking their heads in the sand. May's visit to Calais was quite frankly pathetic. Cameron just doesn't look like he's up to dealing with a crisis in his own kitchen, never mind the country.
If things carry on we may well need to start thinking about a National Govt- not thinking about who the next Tory leader is. Europe may well need to develop new emergency governance arrangements too.
At this moment in our history we need people of substance and vision. When I look at our lot, I despair, I really do. That is why Yvette impressed so much yesterday- at least she has the guts to speak about possible solutions.
This is the most pressing issue the Arab world has faced which it is refusing to deal with and which it is seeking to dump on Europe. Any solution - both short and long-term - needs to involve the Arab world since they are the cause of it and it is there that any solution will have to be found.
There are rich Arab governments and rich Arab countries with territory. Stop giving the Arab world a free pass from the problems they have created.
If we're using WW2 analogies it would be like Europe dumping the millions of German refugees expelled from Eastern Europe onto the shores of Tunisia and Libya and Egypt and Lebanon and letting them get on with it.
There's an interesting piece on the BBC website, about a young woman who's travelled from Syria to Sweden, where she's claimed asylum. My impression is that the reader is expected to identify with her, but in reality, she's a cheat. She fled Syria, two years ago, with her mother, and lived in Istanbul. There she had a job, and a decent standard of living. But, her brother lives in Sweden, and she rather fancies living there. So, she paid a trafficker to smuggle her via Greece into Central Europe, and from there, made her way to Sweden. She was not, by any measure, facing persecution in Istanbul, but still feels entitled to emigrate to Sweden.
I think such ostentation is tremendously bad form. There is an Italian phrase "sputare nella faccia della poverta" (spitting in the face of poverty) which sums up my view. When one has such wealth, one has an obligation to use it wisely, not simply to spend on oneself and gloat and congratulate oneself on one's own cleverness, which owes more to luck and the contributions of others than rich people sometimes like to admit.
On the other hand, Roger was reporting from, of all places, Monte Carlo. If you're an oligarch and you can't be obscenely ostentatious in Monte Carlo, where can you be obscenely ostentatious?
I think such ostentation is tremendously bad form. There is an Italian phrase "sputare nella faccia della poverta" (spitting in the face of poverty) which sums up my view. When one has such wealth, one has an obligation to use it wisely, not simply to spend on oneself and gloat and congratulate oneself on one's own cleverness, which owes more to luck and the contributions of others than rich people sometimes like to admit.
On the other hand, Roger was reporting from, of all places, Monte Carlo. If you're an oligarch and you can't be obscenely ostentatious in Monte Carlo, where can you be obscenely ostentatious?
Roger clearly feels comfortable in Monte Carlo, or he wouldn't be there. Sunlit streets, swept clean of detritus, not a poor person in sight. His kind of place.
Did she say 10,000 per month? I only half-listened but in the the clip I saw it sounded like a total of 10,000, which would be a drop in the ocean.
I note the BBC now use the generic term of 'refugees' rather than 'asylum seekers'.
I think I may have misheard. Might be she wants to take in 10,000 in a month.
Lol
it's Cooper speak, the numbers could mean anything 10 k, 120 k ?
Merely rounding
Just mouthing inanities, a complete cardboard cutout.
Cardboard cutouts are useful though
Actually I do think she has more actual substance than the others, and has made the occasional effort,if not enough, so she's probably the best of the bunch, for all her deficiencies.
I think such ostentation is tremendously bad form. There is an Italian phrase "sputare nella faccia della poverta" (spitting in the face of poverty) which sums up my view. When one has such wealth, one has an obligation to use it wisely, not simply to spend on oneself and gloat and congratulate oneself on one's own cleverness, which owes more to luck and the contributions of others than rich people sometimes like to admit.
On the other hand, Roger was reporting from, of all places, Monte Carlo. If you're an oligarch and you can't be obscenely ostentatious in Monte Carlo, where can you be obscenely ostentatious?
I've never felt more uncomfortable than when in Monte Carlo... Eerie, dated and full of old men w women that don't love them
O/T Especially interesting for those with Daughters and Grandaughters.
"Tragically, what has been “enculturated” into our 18-year-old girls is that they are now so sexually empowered they can take part in the Line Up with no consequences to their emotional or mental health. "
I've no particular problem with 10,000 Syrian refugees coming here, provided that they are genuinely refugees. But, I anticipate that this will happen as part of the normal process of seeking asylum in this country, anyway.
Where I would take issue is with the notion that we are somehow not "doing our bit." As a nation, we've taken in thousands of refugees over the past 25 years, and prior to that, groups like Ugandan, and Malawi Asians. At the same time, thousands of people whose asylum claims have been rejected have remained here, either by disappearing into the shadows, or by spinning out the appeals process long enough to claim the right to remain under Article 8. In some cases, people who have committed serious criminal offences have remained in this country.
So, while British people have shown themselves to be compassionate, there are limits to their compassion. And, this is despite the level of abuse of the asylum system in the past.
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
It's one thing to call for them to be spread out, but she spelt out no plans to actually do this in practice. Is she calling for regulation to make local authorities buy 10 properties in each town in the country? Because until they do that, we know what would happen. We would get 10,000 refugees and they would be put in existing housing designated for refugees, and, when we run out of that housing, they would be put in B&Bs where they can be found, which are mainly in London.
O/T Especially interesting for those with Daughters and Grandaughters.
"Tragically, what has been “enculturated” into our 18-year-old girls is that they are now so sexually empowered they can take part in the Line Up with no consequences to their emotional or mental health. "
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
And in 10 years time when those 10 families in each town, have swelled to a 100 or a thousand? And the various long held animosities and grievances that we're watching unfold across the ME kick off here in earnest...
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
Yes, but they would quickly aggregate to fewer places or just add their friends/relatives to where they are. Just how would they be employed?
Yvette Cooper said that we could take in 10,000 refugees in a month. Which we unarguably could do. And should do.
Please explain why and also how you strictly define a refugee.
I have a dayjob which calls, so I can't argue indefinitely today.
In brief, there are vast numbers of people fleeing Syria into Europe. We (western countries) should have done more to help them on the ground but we did not, so they are leaving. Given that millions have been displaced in Syria, most of those fleeing will be genuine refugees. We cannot leave those EU countries closest to the action to bear the brunt of this without our help. So we must play our part. We are one of the wealthiest countries in Europe with a long tradition of accepting refugees. We should continue that tradition.
We should of course do far more on the ground in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan etc to help refugees build a life there and to do our best to dissuade others from following. That is a separate discussion.
As of January this year the UK had was the second largest provider of aid to the Syrian refugee crisis after the US. We had provided more money - almost twice as much in fact - than the whole of the rest of the EU put together and had on our own contributed 15% of the total amount requested by the UN for their £4 billion fund for Syria.
This is not in any way a criticism of the amount we have contributed but the idea we have not done enough to try and help is ridiculous.
This is the most pressing issue the Arab world has faced which it is refusing to deal with and which it is seeking to dump on Europe. Any solution - both short and long-term - needs to involve the Arab world since they are the cause of it and it is there that any solution will have to be found.
There are rich Arab governments and rich Arab countries with territory. Stop giving the Arab world a free pass from the problems they have created.
If we're using WW2 analogies it would be like Europe dumping the millions of German refugees expelled from Eastern Europe onto the shores of Tunisia and Libya and Egypt and Lebanon and letting them get on with it.
There's an interesting piece on the BBC website, about a young woman who's travelled from Syria to Sweden, where she's claimed asylum. My impression is that the reader is expected to identify with her, but in reality, she's a cheat. She fled Syria, two years ago, with her mother, and lived in Istanbul. There she had a job, and a decent standard of living. But, her brother lives in Sweden, and she rather fancies living there. So, she paid a trafficker to smuggle her via Greece into Central Europe, and from there, made her way to Sweden. She was not, by any measure, facing persecution in Istanbul, but still feels entitled to emigrate to Sweden.
She ought to be deported straight back to Turkey.
And that story highlights another issue: once you have some family members in one country you will get more through the family reunion and right to family life routes and before long we will have large communities of people from an extremist ridden violent part of the world in our midst. What are the chances of successfully integrating them?
The focus has to be on (1) getting the Arab world to take responsibility for its problems; (2) dissuading the migrants from coming to Europe; and (3) doing more to create places of safety within the Middle East. Then - and only with the consent of our populations - set out strict criteria and limits for those we are prepared to invite in and enforce those properly.
Yvette Cooper said that we could take in 10,000 refugees in a month. Which we unarguably could do. And should do.
Please explain why and also how you strictly define a refugee.
I have a dayjob which calls, so I can't argue indefinitely today.
In brief, there are vast numbers of people fleeing Syria into Europe. We (western countries) should have done more to help them on the ground but we did not, so they are leaving. Given that millions have been displaced in Syria, most of those fleeing will be genuine refugees. We cannot leave those EU countries closest to the action to bear the brunt of this without our help. So we must play our part. We are one of the wealthiest countries in Europe with a long tradition of accepting refugees. We should continue that tradition.
We should of course do far more on the ground in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan etc to help refugees build a life there and to do our best to dissuade others from following. That is a separate discussion.
As of January this year the UK had was the second largest provider of aid to the Syrian refugee crisis after the US. We had provided more money - almost twice as much in fact - than the whole of the rest of the EU put together and had on our own contributed 15% of the total amount requested by the UN for their £4 billion fund for Syria.
This is not in any way a criticism of the amount we have contributed but the idea we have not done enough to try and help is ridiculous.
Yvette Cooper said that we could take in 10,000 refugees in a month. Which we unarguably could do. And should do.
Please explain why and also how you strictly define a refugee.
I have a dayjob which calls, so I can't argue indefinitely today.
In brief, there are vast numbers of people fleeing Syria into Europe. We (western countries) should have done more to help them on the ground but we did not, so they are leaving. Given that millions have been displaced in Syria, most of those fleeing will be genuine refugees. We cannot leave those EU countries closest to the action to bear the brunt of this without our help. So we must play our part. We are one of the wealthiest countries in Europe with a long tradition of accepting refugees. We should continue that tradition.
We should of course do far more on the ground in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan etc to help refugees build a life there and to do our best to dissuade others from following. That is a separate discussion.
As of January this year the UK had was the second largest provider of aid to the Syrian refugee crisis after the US. We had provided more money - almost twice as much in fact - than the whole of the rest of the EU put together and had on our own contributed 15% of the total amount requested by the UN for their £4 billion fund for Syria.
This is not in any way a criticism of the amount we have contributed but the idea we have not done enough to try and help is ridiculous.
O/T Especially interesting for those with Daughters and Grandaughters.
"Tragically, what has been “enculturated” into our 18-year-old girls is that they are now so sexually empowered they can take part in the Line Up with no consequences to their emotional or mental health. "
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
Have you just solved the problem of the bedroom tax?
O/T Especially interesting for those with Daughters and Grandaughters.
"Tragically, what has been “enculturated” into our 18-year-old girls is that they are now so sexually empowered they can take part in the Line Up with no consequences to their emotional or mental health. "
Surely he has to complete the renegotiation first.
Maybe he has been told he will not get anything substantial.
I am surprised that anyone thinks he will. There are plenty of things I dislike about the EU such as its lack of democracy, over-regulation, and the fact that it is premised on one particular political view. But I am sure when push comes to shove I will vote, however marginally, for in. The only choice Cameron will have is whether to claim the result of his negotiations is a substantive change, or to be honest and say "it's not very good, but the EU isn't amenable to change. We like it or lump it. On balance, I still think we should be in".
Anyone who ever thought the result of renegotiation might be anything else is a fool.
So the truth comes out even on PB EU die-hards. The whole Cameron renegotiation meme is a load of lying bollocks.
Depends how he sells what he does get. If he says it's not as much as he'd like but it's something and shows we are moving in the right direction, that's defendable, though I think wrong. If he says he won a great victory then, barring the EU actually giving him one which nobody is expecting, then Yes, it will be a lie.
I think this is correct. I am concerned not just for the result of the EU referendum, but also the long term health of the Conservative Party. If Cameron achieves a modest renegotiation, then he needs to come out and be honest, "Sadly, we weren't able to achieve what we aimed for, but we still have some reforms and we must push for more in future. I still think we should stay in the EU on balance". If he does that, we can have a mature debate and allow wounds to heal afterwards.
What will poison the well is if he comes home and claims a modest renegotiation is a transformation, or if he claims a few changes to benefits will substantially reduce EU migration. If he does that, we will get a repeat of the Red Tory thing in Scotland, only this time it will be Blue Europhiles. Us Conservatives can handle our leadership disagreeing with us. What we can't accept is if they try to deceive us and the country to get their way, on a matter of such national importance.
Of course, this can all be avoided if Cameron defies expectations with the renegotiation as he has done in other areas in the past.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
Have you just solved the problem of the bedroom tax?
But you cannot make that comparison - these people will not go back after 2 or 3 years - unless you are suggesting that major towns like Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow take up this slack.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
I think that is OTT.
Commandeering Pontins etc would come first, surely?
In my view, the differences between UK and say Germany, are:
1 - UK Overseas Aid spending is pretty much double Germany's - 0.7% vs 0.4% of GDP.
3 - They seem to struggle to spend the UK aid budget anyway. IIRC it is heavily weighted to the the Final Quarter. Hardly surprising when Mr Cameron has done a Gordon and measured his success by money spent, not outcomes achieved.
4 - Germany has a declining population, and needs people. We do not.
Logic says let Germany take in people.
Meanwhile let us use a large chunk of our "aid" bidget for "aid". Use perhaps £2-3bn per year to mantain refugees in Turkey or Cyprus or wherever. That is an appropriate response using the resources we have got.
Regarding the migrant crisis- this is the most pressing issue Europe has faced since the second world war. Forget China, Greece, the Euro, the UK's referendum- these pale into insignificance against dealing with the mass influx of migrants.
This issue should be dominating the Labour leadership debate- not the anachronistic throwback to 1970's student politics that Corbyn represents. ...
As to our own Govt- I really do not know what the hell they are doing to engage with it at all, apart from sticking their heads in the sand. ....
If things carry on we may well need to start thinking about a National Govt- ....
At this moment in our history we need people of substance and vision. When I look at our lot, I despair, I really do. That is why Yvette impressed so much yesterday- at least she has the guts to speak about possible solutions.
Its your last paragraph which makes me realise how of touch it is that you are. YC represents vision!!!!??? So who will form a national govt with the Tories? The lib dems?? Its incredible how wide of the mark you have swerved from your opening paragraphs.
Europe represents democracies which are fundamentally interested in helping people. So migrants are not likely to go to Russia, or China and the USA is too far away. Sadly, Labour showed weakness when it came to the option of helping Syrian rebels and some tory backbenchers like David Davis (both of them!) showed stupidity. So much for it being the left of the tory party that is not willing to act!
This background makes it almost impossible to strike at places where the problem is fermented. It set up the problem of ISIS in Syria and now we have the daft situation where even when RAF pilots are on secondment to the USAF the opposition and media complain about them bombing Syrian targets. So really - a national government? The UN should be the place where these issues are resolved but it too is spineless.
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
Yes, but they would quickly aggregate to fewer places or just add their friends/relatives to where they are. Just how would they be employed?
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
And in 10 years time when those 10 families in each town, have swelled to a 100 or a thousand? And the various long held animosities and grievances that we're watching unfold across the ME kick off here in earnest...
You sound just like Enoch... In which case of course you are right. But at least Cooper did think of spreading the burden, probably the most thoughtful thing a non UKIP politician other than Enoch has said on immigration since 1968 (not a competitive heat)
We can stipulate who we take and where we put them. Not only is it the right thing to do, it could also help to kick-start a number of communities and local economies. From what I can see a lot of the refugees are families. I doubt they are escaping a bloodbath just so they can start another one. They just want to get on with their lives without fear. And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little.
O/T Especially interesting for those with Daughters and Grandaughters.
"Tragically, what has been “enculturated” into our 18-year-old girls is that they are now so sexually empowered they can take part in the Line Up with no consequences to their emotional or mental health. "
That sounds like moral outrage over an urban myth to me.
I have to say I'd never heard of the "line up" before. Is that really the norm?
I am afraid so from what I have learned locally - as usual parents do not know what is happening in this social media age.
Claims about outrageous sexual acts among teenagers have been common place for the last 30 years. They always turn out to be completely without evidence and usually can be tracked back to one right wing writer.
The problem social conservatives have is they create and propagate these wild stories, which undermines our credibility. Why can't we just be confident saying that casual sex among teenagers is a hazard to both physical and psychological health, and people would be healthier and happier if they waited until they were in mature, respectful, long-term and monogamous relationships before they started being sexually active?
Mr. Observer, that line, also adopted by Cooper, assumes that people who've travelled thousands of miles will be unable/unwilling to move around the UK.
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
Yes, but they would quickly aggregate to fewer places or just add their friends/relatives to where they are. Just how would they be employed?
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
And in 10 years time when those 10 families in each town, have swelled to a 100 or a thousand? And the various long held animosities and grievances that we're watching unfold across the ME kick off here in earnest...
You sound just like Enoch... In which case of course you are right. But at least Cooper did think of spreading the burden, probably the most thoughtful thing a non UKIP politician other than Enoch has said on immigration since 1968 (not a competitive heat)
I'm afraid I'm rather more cynical than you. She said 10 families per locality because 10 sounds a less scary number than 10,000 let alone 120,000 p.a on top of existing migration numbers.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
Have you just solved the problem of the bedroom tax?
But you cannot make that comparison - these people will not go back after 2 or 3 years - unless you are suggesting that major towns like Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow take up this slack.
Oh yes, of course once they have been here 2-3 years, anyone suggesting they return to the place they came from will be a diabolical combo of nick griffin and Adolf hitler... With the fake Tory Guardianista on here shouting loudest
O/T Especially interesting for those with Daughters and Grandaughters.
"Tragically, what has been “enculturated” into our 18-year-old girls is that they are now so sexually empowered they can take part in the Line Up with no consequences to their emotional or mental health. "
That sounds like moral outrage over an urban myth to me.
I have to say I'd never heard of the "line up" before. Is that really the norm?
I am afraid so from what I have learned locally - as usual parents do not know what is happening in this social media age.
Claims about outrageous sexual acts among teenagers have been common place for the last 30 years. They always turn out to be completely without evidence and usually can be tracked back to one right wing writer.
The problem social conservatives have is they create and propagate these wild stories, which undermines our credibility. Why can't we just be confident saying that casual sex among teenagers is a hazard to both physical and psychological health, and people would be healthier and happier if they waited until they were in mature, respectful, long-term and monogamous relationships before they started being sexually active?
It's another issue where there is an interesting coincidence of opinion among old fashioned social conservatives and new-fashioned feminists.
Miss Cyclefree, precisely. It's why opponents of Trident frame it as a £100bn cost, the lifetime cost, rather than taking an annual or per capita approach.
We can stipulate who we take and where we put them. Not only is it the right thing to do, it could also help to kick-start a number of communities and local economies. From what I can see a lot of the refugees are families. I doubt they are escaping a bloodbath just so they can start another one. They just want to get on with their lives without fear. And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little.
I remember when you used to argue that immigrants aren't a monolith
EDIT Sorry it was the working class that weren't a monolith, but the principle is the same
We can stipulate who we take and where we put them. Not only is it the right thing to do, it could also help to kick-start a number of communities and local economies. From what I can see a lot of the refugees are families. I doubt they are escaping a bloodbath just so they can start another one. They just want to get on with their lives without fear. And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little.
How many are just escaping a bloodbath? Can you guarantee that they will leave their religious biases and hatreds behind them? Many of our home-grown terrorists are descendants of immigrants of many years ago.
Do you really want to impose more foreign cultures on our communities without their consent? Where will they be housed and what jobs would they do? Many of our schools and health services would not have the required capacity. How many would then want to import their families and greater families?
Mr. Observer, that line, also adopted by Cooper, assumes that people who've travelled thousands of miles will be unable/unwilling to move around the UK.
They have travelled with their families. They want to live in peace. Anywhere is better than where they are now. With imagination this is an opportunity for us. The chance to embed relatively well-educated, professional families into depressed communities that will never get that kick-start from internal immigration. They are not a swarm or an invasion, they are desperate people who will be hugely grateful to whatever country helps them and will strive to do their very best for it - as it will mean doing best for themselves too.
Regarding the migrant crisis- this is the most pressing issue Europe has faced since the second world war. Forget China, Greece, the Euro, the UK's referendum- these pale into insignificance against dealing with the mass influx of migrants.
This issue should be dominating the Labour leadership debate- not the anachronistic throwback to 1970's student politics that Corbyn represents. ...
As to our own Govt- I really do not know what the hell they are doing to engage with it at all, apart from sticking their heads in the sand. ....
If things carry on we may well need to start thinking about a National Govt- ....
At this moment in our history we need people of substance and vision. When I look at our lot, I despair, I really do. That is why Yvette impressed so much yesterday- at least she has the guts to speak about possible solutions.
Its your last paragraph which makes me realise how of touch it is that you are. YC represents vision!!!!??? So who will form a national govt with the Tories? The lib dems?? Its incredible how wide of the mark you have swerved from your opening paragraphs.
Europe represents democracies which are fundamentally interested in helping people. So migrants are not likely to go to Russia, or China and the USA is too far away. Sadly, Labour showed weakness when it came to the option of helping Syrian rebels and some tory backbenchers like David Davis (both of them!) showed stupidity. So much for it being the left of the tory party that is not willing to act!
This background makes it almost impossible to strike at places where the problem is fermented. It set up the problem of ISIS in Syria and now we have the daft situation where even when RAF pilots are on secondment to the USAF the opposition and media complain about them bombing Syrian targets. So really - a national government? The UN should be the place where these issues are resolved but it too is spineless.
So we should have done as Cameron wanted and bombed the forces inside Syria that were actually fighting IS. Oh I am sure that would have done wonders for the region. In case you missed it we had lots of jolly japes bombing Government forces in Libya and as a result the country is a basket case.
People aren't mushrooms. You can't just plant them somewhere and expect them to stay there.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Tyndall, at the time ISIS didn't even exist, and the democratic forces [now, seemingly, barely existent] were much stronger. Intervention could've made things worse. Or better. We'll never know.
O/T Especially interesting for those with Daughters and Grandaughters.
"Tragically, what has been “enculturated” into our 18-year-old girls is that they are now so sexually empowered they can take part in the Line Up with no consequences to their emotional or mental health. "
That sounds like moral outrage over an urban myth to me.
I have to say I'd never heard of the "line up" before. Is that really the norm?
I am afraid so from what I have learned locally - as usual parents do not know what is happening in this social media age.
Claims about outrageous sexual acts among teenagers have been common place for the last 30 years. They always turn out to be completely without evidence and usually can be tracked back to one right wing writer.
The problem social conservatives have is they create and propagate these wild stories, which undermines our credibility. Why can't we just be confident saying that casual sex among teenagers is a hazard to both physical and psychological health, and people would be healthier and happier if they waited until they were in mature, respectful, long-term and monogamous relationships before they started being sexually active?
It's another issue where there is an interesting coincidence of opinion among old fashioned social conservatives and new-fashioned feminists.
Perhaps she needs to ask Germane Greer. (Typo deliberate).
We can stipulate who we take and where we put them. Not only is it the right thing to do, it could also help to kick-start a number of communities and local economies. From what I can see a lot of the refugees are families. I doubt they are escaping a bloodbath just so they can start another one. They just want to get on with their lives without fear. And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little.
How many are just escaping a bloodbath? Can you guarantee that they will leave their religious biases and hatreds behind them? Many of our home-grown terrorists and descendants of immigrants of many years ago.
Do you really want to impose more foreign cultures on our communities without their consent? Where will they be housed and what jobs would they do? Many of our schools and health services would not have the required capacity. How many would then want to import their families and greater families?
That's the spirit. I thought you were an entrepreneur capable of seeing opportunity and possibility.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
Regarding the migrant crisis- this is the most pressing issue Europe has faced since the second world war. Forget China, Greece, the Euro, the UK's referendum- these pale into insignificance against dealing with the mass influx of migrants.
This issue should be dominating the Labour leadership debate- not the anachronistic throwback to 1970's student politics that Corbyn represents. ...
As to our own Govt- I really do not know what the hell they are doing to engage with it at all, apart from sticking their heads in the sand. ....
If things carry on we may well need to start thinking about a National Govt- ....
At this moment in our history we need people of substance and vision. When I look at our lot, I despair, I really do. That is why Yvette impressed so much yesterday- at least she has the guts to speak about possible solutions.
Its your last paragraph which makes me realise how of touch it is that you are. YC represents vision!!!!??? So who will form a national govt with the Tories? The lib dems?? Its incredible how wide of the mark you have swerved from your opening paragraphs.
Europe represents democracies which are fundamentally interested in helping people. So migrants are not likely to go to Russia, or China and the USA is too far away. Sadly, Labour showed weakness when it came to the option of helping Syrian rebels and some tory backbenchers like David Davis (both of them!) showed stupidity. So much for it being the left of the tory party that is not willing to act!
This background makes it almost impossible to strike at places where the problem is fermented. It set up the problem of ISIS in Syria and now we have the daft situation where even when RAF pilots are on secondment to the USAF the opposition and media complain about them bombing Syrian targets. So really - a national government? The UN should be the place where these issues are resolved but it too is spineless.
So we should have done as Cameron wanted and bombed the forces inside Syria that were actually fighting IS. Oh I am sure that would have done wonders for the region. In case you missed it we had lots of jolly japes bombing Government forces in Libya and as a result the country is a basket case.
Pillock.
There's no need to be rude to people. We can strongly disagree with each other without being disagreeable.
We can stipulate who we take and where we put them. Not only is it the right thing to do, it could also help to kick-start a number of communities and local economies. From what I can see a lot of the refugees are families. I doubt they are escaping a bloodbath just so they can start another one. They just want to get on with their lives without fear. And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little.
I remember when you used to argue that immigrants aren't a monolith
EDIT Sorry it was the working class that weren't a monolith, but the principle is the same
They are not. There are young men who are economic migrants and there are professional families who are escaping a bloodbath. I say we offer the latter as much as we can, as we could benefit as much as them.
Yvette Cooper said that we could take in 10,000 refugees in a month. Which we unarguably could do. And should do.
Please explain why and also how you strictly define a refugee.
I have a dayjob which calls, so I can't argue indefinitely today.
In brief, there are vast numbers of people fleeing Syria into Europe. We (western countries) should have done more to help them on the ground but we did not, so they are leaving. Given that millions have been displaced in Syria, most of those fleeing will be genuine refugees. We cannot leave those EU countries closest to the action to bear the brunt of this without our help. So we must play our part. We are one of the wealthiest countries in Europe with a long tradition of accepting refugees. We should continue that tradition.
We should of course do far more on the ground in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan etc to help refugees build a life there and to do our best to dissuade others from following. That is a separate discussion.
As of January this year the UK had was the second largest provider of aid to the Syrian refugee crisis after the US. We had provided more money - almost twice as much in fact - than the whole of the rest of the EU put together and had on our own contributed 15% of the total amount requested by the UN for their £4 billion fund for Syria.
This is not in any way a criticism of the amount we have contributed but the idea we have not done enough to try and help is ridiculous.
I absolutely accept that Britain has an excellent record of providing aid to Syria (it's a point I've made myself elsewhere). My "We" in the final paragraph was the entire EU. I apologise for not making that clearer.
Corbyn is already undermined, and (assuming he does win the contest) his entire period as leader will be dominated by rumours and counter-rumours of plots, dissatisfaction, rows, sulking, traitors, defections, and all the associated entertainment which we we were treated to, in a much milder form, when Brown was PM.
Umunna and the other figures on the sane wing of the Labour Party do have a difficult task ahead. They'll want to distance themselves as much as possible from the disaster without being too obviously disloyal, at least in public (I'm sure there will be oodles of juicy unattributed quotes from 'source close to...').
Umunna etc are between a rock and a hard place. If they do the rational thing - like Reid did when Brown became PM - and turn down jobs in the shadow cabinet then the take over by the left of Labour will be made even easier and more complete. If they loin the cabinet they 1) get tarred with Corbyn's loopy loop brush and 2) to have any purpose they must be engaged in a constant fight against Corbyn which will cause splits - or should do. I do not think these mealy mouthed limp Labour figures, as evidenced by Mr Palmer for instance, have any guts or nous to stop the leftward take over of Labour by Corbyn's anti Capitalist anti West allies.
But why should Umunna's views be suddenly given credence? He collapsed like a pack of cards at the first whiff of gunpowder. The notion that he has any bottle that he has any judgement is risible.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
1) After 2-3 years they would to a person claim Article 8 rights and be allowed to stay.
2) It might be considered a little bit of a vote loser, and possibly politically courageous with a slim majority
People aren't mushrooms. You can't just plant them somewhere and expect them to stay there.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Tyndall, at the time ISIS didn't even exist, and the democratic forces [now, seemingly, barely existent] were much stronger. Intervention could've made things worse. Or better. We'll never know.
Wrong. The Syria debate and vote was on 30th August 2013. IS (or ISIL or AQI to give it its earlier names) under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had been operating as a major player in Syria since early 2012.
People aren't mushrooms. You can't just plant them somewhere and expect them to stay there.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Tyndall, at the time ISIS didn't even exist, and the democratic forces [now, seemingly, barely existent] were much stronger. Intervention could've made things worse. Or better. We'll never know.
The families I am talking about are escaping from ISIS and they have gone to great lengths to do so. Syria possessed a well-established, largely secular middle class. It is now moving westwards en masse.
O/T Especially interesting for those with Daughters and Grandaughters.
"Tragically, what has been “enculturated” into our 18-year-old girls is that they are now so sexually empowered they can take part in the Line Up with no consequences to their emotional or mental health. "
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
I am just being much more realistic than you.
The scale of the problem is not 10^4. It is at least an order and probably two orders of magnitude greater. Remember there are already a million Syrian refugees in Lebanon alone. The numbers displaced in the Middle East are O(10^6).
The example of evacuees is interesting because it enable MILLIONS to be moved and offered temporary sanctuary.
Of course, the affluent had to play their part. Rather than just shrugging their shoulders and saying the councils can sort this out. Which I also rather like.
We can stipulate who we take and where we put them. Not only is it the right thing to do, it could also help to kick-start a number of communities and local economies. From what I can see a lot of the refugees are families. I doubt they are escaping a bloodbath just so they can start another one. They just want to get on with their lives without fear. And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little.
How many are just escaping a bloodbath? Can you guarantee that they will leave their religious biases and hatreds behind them? Many of our home-grown terrorists and descendants of immigrants of many years ago.
Do you really want to impose more foreign cultures on our communities without their consent? Where will they be housed and what jobs would they do? Many of our schools and health services would not have the required capacity. How many would then want to import their families and greater families?
That's the spirit. I thought you were an entrepreneur capable of seeing opportunity and possibility.
I am, but like most entrepreneurs, I get the facts right first and evaluate the risk of failure and the risk of ruining what is there already.
How many of these people are professional families - please can you quantify them and then we can continue this debate.
Regarding the migrant crisis- this is the most pressing issue Europe has faced since the second world war. Forget China, Greece, the Euro, the UK's referendum- these pale into insignificance against dealing with the mass influx of migrants.
This issue should be dominating the Labour leadership debate- not the anachronistic throwback to 1970's student politics that Corbyn represents. ...
As to our own Govt- I really do not know what the hell they are doing to engage with it at all, apart from sticking their heads in the sand. ....
If things carry on we may well need to start thinking about a National Govt- ....
At this moment in our history we need people of substance and vision. When I look at our lot, I despair, I really do. That is why Yvette impressed so much yesterday- at least she has the guts to speak about possible solutions.
Its your last paragraph which makes me realise how of touch it is that you are. YC represents vision!!!!??? So who will form a national govt with the Tories? The lib dems?? Its incredible how wide of the mark you have swerved from your opening paragraphs.
Europe represents democracies which are fundamentally interested in helping people. So migrants are not likely to go to Russia, or China and the USA is too far away. Sadly, Labour showed weakness when it came to the option of helping Syrian rebels and some tory backbenchers like David Davis (both of them!) showed stupidity. So much for it being the left of the tory party that is not willing to act!
This background makes it almost impossible to strike at places where the problem is fermented. It set up the problem of ISIS in Syria and now we have the daft situation where even when RAF pilots are on secondment to the USAF the opposition and media complain about them bombing Syrian targets. So really - a national government? The UN should be the place where these issues are resolved but it too is spineless.
So we should have done as Cameron wanted and bombed the forces inside Syria that were actually fighting IS. Oh I am sure that would have done wonders for the region. In case you missed it we had lots of jolly japes bombing Government forces in Libya and as a result the country is a basket case.
Pillock.
There's no need to be rude to people. We can strongly disagree with each other without being disagreeable.
Being disagreeable to the execrable Flightpath - a man bereft of any redeeming features whatsoever - is one of the great joys of this site.
We can stipulate who we take and where we put them. Not only is it the right thing to do, it could also help to kick-start a number of communities and local economies. From what I can see a lot of the refugees are families. I doubt they are escaping a bloodbath just so they can start another one. They just want to get on with their lives without fear. And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little.
I remember when you used to argue that immigrants aren't a monolith
EDIT Sorry it was the working class that weren't a monolith, but the principle is the same
They are not. There are young men who are economic migrants and there are professional families who are escaping a bloodbath. I say we offer the latter as much as we can, as we could benefit as much as them.
Can't be bothered arguing over subjective views, just surprised you of all people would use the phrase
'And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little'
..given how often you pull others up for attributing one set of views/attributes to a mass of people
People aren't mushrooms. You can't just plant them somewhere and expect them to stay there.
This is correct - if a refugee who has settled into a decent life in Istanbul can decide she'd rather live in Sweden instead, I've no doubt a refugee who has been placed in rural Northumbria would rather move towards an urban centre with more opportunities and more members of their community.
However, my point about the relative strength of the democratic opposition remains.
Mr. Observer, that doesn't suggest to me that they'll simply be directed to their appointed town and stay there. Nor that it would be legal to force them to live in a given town.
Regarding the migrant crisis- this is the most pressing issue Europe has faced since the second world war. Forget China, Greece, the Euro, the UK's referendum- these pale into insignificance against dealing with the mass influx of migrants.
This issue should be dominating the Labour leadership debate- not the anachronistic throwback to 1970's student politics that Corbyn represents. ...
As to our own Govt- I really do not know what the hell they are doing to engage with it at all, apart from sticking their heads in the sand. ....
If things carry on we may well need to start thinking about a National Govt- ....
At this moment in our history we need people of substance and vision. When I look at our lot, I despair, I really do. That is why Yvette impressed so much yesterday- at least she has the guts to speak about possible solutions.
Its your last paragraph which makes me realise how of touch it is that you are. YC represents vision!!!!??? So who will form a national govt with the Tories? The lib dems?? Its incredible how wide of the mark you have swerved from your opening paragraphs.
Europe represents democracies which are fundamentally interested in helping people. So migrants are not likely to go to Russia, or China and the USA is too far away. Sadly, Labour showed weakness when it came to the option of helping Syrian rebels and some tory backbenchers like David Davis (both of them!) showed stupidity. So much for it being the left of the tory party that is not willing to act!
This background makes it almost impossible to strike at places where the problem is fermented. It set up the problem of ISIS in Syria and now we have the daft situation where even when RAF pilots are on secondment to the USAF the opposition and media complain about them bombing Syrian targets. So really - a national government? The UN should be the place where these issues are resolved but it too is spineless.
So we should have done as Cameron wanted and bombed the forces inside Syria that were actually fighting IS. Oh I am sure that would have done wonders for the region. In case you missed it we had lots of jolly japes bombing Government forces in Libya and as a result the country is a basket case.
Pillock.
There's no need to be rude to people. We can strongly disagree with each other without being disagreeable.
Being disagreeable to the execrable Flightpath - a man bereft of any redeeming features whatsoever - is one of the great joys of this site.
Yes! Worth getting banned for to give him the full bifta in my experience!!
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
1) After 2-3 years they would to a person claim Article 8 rights and be allowed to stay.
2) It might be considered a little bit of a vote loser, and possibly politically courageous with a slim majority
1) Article 8 would have to be suspended. It would be understood from the beginning that this is temporary refuge for a few years.
2) I think one of the main gripes is that the burden of immigration falls mainly on the poor. This puts the burden on the affluent. It could be a vote winner.
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
Yes, but they would quickly aggregate to fewer places or just add their friends/relatives to where they are. Just how would they be employed?
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
And in 10 years time when those 10 families in each town, have swelled to a 100 or a thousand? And the various long held animosities and grievances that we're watching unfold across the ME kick off here in earnest...
You sound just like Enoch... In which case of course you are right. But at least Cooper did think of spreading the burden, probably the most thoughtful thing a non UKIP politician other than Enoch has said on immigration since 1968 (not a competitive heat)
I'm curious as to how those spread across the country will be forced to remain where they're settled?
Still, it would be interesting to watch Cooper's plan, the angry young criminal men being rejected for asylum, whilst deserving families are let in. That's the idea isn't it?
And of course Yvette will be explaining personally to those indigenous Brits on the housing lists, why they're sliding down the queue, in favour of the thousands of grateful new voters she's prioritising.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
I am just being much more realistic than you.
The scale of the problem is not 10^4. It is at least an order and probably two orders of magnitude greater. Remember there are already a million Syrian refugees in Lebanon alone. The numbers displaced in the Middle East are O(10^6).
The example of evacuees is interesting because it enable MILLIONS to be moved and offered temporary sanctuary.
Of course, the affluent had to play their part. Rather than just shrugging their shoulders and saying the councils can sort this out. Which I also rather like.
So perhaps the degree of potential co-operation should be assessed from the members of both Houses of Parliament, all top earners of the BBC, all media, luvies and entertainment professionals, all people earning say over 60K?
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
I am just being much more realistic than you.
The scale of the problem is not 10^4. It is at least an order and probably two orders of magnitude greater. Remember there are already a million Syrian refugees in Lebanon alone. The numbers displaced in the Middle East are O(10^6).
The example of evacuees is interesting because it enable MILLIONS to be moved and offered temporary sanctuary.
Of course, the affluent had to play their part. Rather than just shrugging their shoulders and saying the councils can sort this out. Which I also rather like.
Very well then, you deliberately put words into my mouth that you knew were not what I had said. I shall remember that when reading your posts in future.
However, you could still benefit from reading. I drew attention to the need to do much more on the ground locally (indeed at Christmas 2013 when I made the point that taking all refugees from this conflict was impractical and we needed to focus on support on the ground I was roundly abused from all directions).
The affluent pay their part by paying taxes. If we really reach the point where everyone needs to contribute by opening up their doors for billeting, I expect I shall do my part. But since we have not got anywhere near that point at present, I am assuming that you're just being an arsehole. The rest of your posts this morning would support that conclusion.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
Seriously, where will they live in the UK? How do you propose housing an extra 10,000 a month in addition to those already here, both indigenous and immigrant who are already in need of accommodation.
At this moment in our history we need people of substance and vision. When I look at our lot, I despair, I really do. That is why Yvette impressed so much yesterday- at least she has the guts to speak about possible solutions.
Its your last paragraph which makes me realise how of touch it is that you are. YC represents vision!!!!??? So who will form a national govt with the Tories? The lib dems?? Its incredible how wide of the mark you have swerved from your opening paragraphs.
Europe represents democracies which are fundamentally interested in helping people. So migrants are not likely to go to Russia, or China and the USA is too far away. Sadly, Labour showed weakness when it came to the option of helping Syrian rebels and some tory backbenchers like David Davis (both of them!) showed stupidity. So much for it being the left of the tory party that is not willing to act!
This background makes it almost impossible to strike at places where the problem is fermented. It set up the problem of ISIS in Syria and now we have the daft situation where even when RAF pilots are on secondment to the USAF the opposition and media complain about them bombing Syrian targets. So really - a national government? The UN should be the place where these issues are resolved but it too is spineless.
So we should have done as Cameron wanted and bombed the forces inside Syria that were actually fighting IS. Oh I am sure that would have done wonders for the region. In case you missed it we had lots of jolly japes bombing Government forces in Libya and as a result the country is a basket case.
Pillock.
There's no need to be rude to people. We can strongly disagree with each other without being disagreeable.
Being disagreeable to the execrable Flightpath - a man bereft of any redeeming features whatsoever - is one of the great joys of this site.
Yes! Worth getting banned for to give him the full bifta in my experience!!
Hilarious. And from a socialist kipper as well. If I am upsetting some people don't worry, you deserve it. We could have aided the sane rebels and undermined ISIS from the start. Well done Miliband and that greatest self server of all David Davis.
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
Yes, but they would quickly aggregate to fewer places or just add their friends/relatives to where they are. Just how would they be employed?
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
And in 10 years time when those 10 families in each town, have swelled to a 100 or a thousand? And the various long held animosities and grievances that we're watching unfold across the ME kick off here in earnest...
You sound just like Enoch... In which case of course you are right. But at least Cooper did think of spreading the burden, probably the most thoughtful thing a non UKIP politician other than Enoch has said on immigration since 1968 (not a competitive heat)
I'm curious as to how those spread across the country will be forced to remain where they're settled?
Still, it would be interesting to watch Cooper's plan, the angry young criminal men being rejected for asylum, whilst deserving families are let in. That's the idea isn't it?
And of course Yvette will be explaining personally to those indigenous Brits on the housing lists, why they're sliding down the queue, in favour of the thousands of grateful new voters she's prioritising.
I didn't say I agreed I just picked out one slight redeeming feature of her plan... I guess you could only allocate x amount of council housing stock per town?
As others have said this wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a problem if we hadn't had a decades worth of mass economic migration. Now people are fed up of it when the actual deserving need help
However, my point about the relative strength of the democratic opposition remains.
Mr. Observer, that doesn't suggest to me that they'll simply be directed to their appointed town and stay there. Nor that it would be legal to force them to live in a given town.
A fair bit of the democratic opposition were destroyed by IS itself.
I am almost of the opinion that we should be looking at a Churchill/Stalin scenario here. Stalin was undoubtedly one of the worst murderous dictators of the twentieth century. But he ended up as an ally for a short time because we shared a similar - and worse - enemy. We ignored the fact he arrested and executed other allies - chief amongst them the Poles. We let him fight his war of conquest and aggression against the Finns whose only crime had been to be invaded by Russia when the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact had been in force and so ended up on the wrong side by accident when Germany decided to attack Russia in 1941. We did all of this because he was fighting what we considered to be the greater evil.
Personally I would see the current Syrian regime in the same light. This is not to excuse for a minute their crimes. But for now at least IS are a greater threat to both the region and the West than Assad. Dealing with Assad can come later. Right now we need all the allies we can get in the region.
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
Yes, but they would quickly aggregate to fewer places or just add their friends/relatives to where they are. Just how would they be employed?
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
And in 10 years time when those 10 families in each town, have swelled to a 100 or a thousand? And the various long held animosities and grievances that we're watching unfold across the ME kick off here in earnest...
You sound just like Enoch... In which case of course you are right. But at least Cooper did think of spreading the burden, probably the most thoughtful thing a non UKIP politician other than Enoch has said on immigration since 1968 (not a competitive heat)
I'm curious as to how those spread across the country will be forced to remain where they're settled?
Still, it would be interesting to watch Cooper's plan, the angry young criminal men being rejected for asylum, whilst deserving families are let in. That's the idea isn't it?
And of course Yvette will be explaining personally to those indigenous Brits on the housing lists, why they're sliding down the queue, in favour of the thousands of grateful new voters she's prioritising.
Yvette will also be explaining personally to the pleading face of the person number 10,001 on the list as to why they can't come in.
And the pleading face of the person number 1,000,001 on the list.
Nobody who advocates "some" of these migrants coming here will give you their criteria for the cut-off. Yes, I'm looking at you, Yvette. Until they do, there are only two viable options:
a) take none of them (yet be generous with foreign aid to assist them where they are); or b) take all of them
Mr. Observer, that doesn't suggest to me that they'll simply be directed to their appointed town and stay there. Nor that it would be legal to force them to live in a given town.
To actually achieve what Cooper wants, you would have to build internment camps.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
I am just being much more realistic than you.
The scale of the problem is not 10^4. It is at least an order and probably two orders of magnitude greater. Remember there are already a million Syrian refugees in Lebanon alone. The numbers displaced in the Middle East are O(10^6).
The example of evacuees is interesting because it enable MILLIONS to be moved and offered temporary sanctuary.
Of course, the affluent had to play their part. Rather than just shrugging their shoulders and saying the councils can sort this out. Which I also rather like.
Very well then, you deliberately put words into my mouth that you knew were not what I had said. I shall remember that when reading your posts in future.
However, you could still benefit from reading. I drew attention to the need to do much more on the ground locally (indeed at Christmas 2013 when I made the point that taking all refugees from this conflict was impractical and we needed to focus on support on the ground I was roundly abused from all directions).
The affluent pay their part by paying taxes. If we really reach the point where everyone needs to contribute by opening up their doors for billeting, I expect I shall do my part. But since we have not got anywhere near that point at present, I am assuming that you're just being an arsehole. The rest of your posts this morning would support that conclusion.
I think where we disagree is “the affluent play their part by paying taxes”.
At this moment in our history we need people of substance and vision. When I look at our lot, I despair, I really do. That is why Yvette impressed so much yesterday- at least she has the guts to speak about possible solutions.
Its your last paragraph which makes me realise how of touch it is that you are. YC represents vision!!!!??? So who will form a national govt with the Tories? The lib dems?? Its incredible how wide of the mark you have swerved from your opening paragraphs.
Europe represents democracies which are fundamentally interested in helping people. So migrants are not likely to go to Russia, or China and the USA is too far away. Sadly, Labour showed weakness when it came to the option of helping Syrian rebels and some tory backbenchers like David Davis (both of them!) showed stupidity. So much for it being the left of the tory party that is not willing to act!
This background makes it almost impossible to strike at places where the problem is fermented. It set up the problem of ISIS in Syria and now we have the daft situation where even when RAF pilots are on secondment to the USAF the opposition and media complain about them bombing Syrian targets. So really - a national government? The UN should be the place where these issues are resolved but it too is spineless.
So we should have done as Cameron wanted and bombed the forces inside Syria that were actually fighting IS. Oh I am sure that would have done wonders for the region. In case you missed it we had lots of jolly japes bombing Government forces in Libya and as a result the country is a basket case.
Pillock.
There's no need to be rude to people. We can strongly disagree with each other without being disagreeable.
Being disagreeable to the execrable Flightpath - a man bereft of any redeeming features whatsoever - is one of the great joys of this site.
Yes! Worth getting banned for to give him the full bifta in my experience!!
Hilarious. And from a socialist kipper as well. If I am upsetting some people don't worry, you deserve it. We could have aided the sane rebels and undermined ISIS from the start. Well done Miliband and that greatest self server of all David Davis.
Doesn't upset me, you remind me of watching Gazza try to make sense... Good entertainment
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
Seriously, where will they live in the UK?
Every year half a million or more immigrants arrive and a couple of hundred thousand people leave Britain. In the context of those numbers, 120,000 a year really isn't very much at all.
In case you hadn't noticed, Britain's population is expected to grow quite rapidly in coming decades.
Roger has confessed to enjoying the delights of Monte Carlo - perhaps when Cannes, Nice and Monaco get thronged with refugees, then some sensible polices will emerge. Still the holiday season is nigh over - so perhaps no worry til next year!
We can stipulate who we take and where we put them. Not only is it the right thing to do, it could also help to kick-start a number of communities and local economies. From what I can see a lot of the refugees are families. I doubt they are escaping a bloodbath just so they can start another one. They just want to get on with their lives without fear. And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little.
I remember when you used to argue that immigrants aren't a monolith
EDIT Sorry it was the working class that weren't a monolith, but the principle is the same
They are not. There are young men who are economic migrants and there are professional families who are escaping a bloodbath. I say we offer the latter as much as we can, as we could benefit as much as them.
Can't be bothered arguing over subjective views, just surprised you of all people would use the phrase
'And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little'
..given how often you pull others up for attributing one set of views/attributes to a mass of people
Fair enough - I see where you are coming form and my language was loose. The evidence suggests that most immigrants come here to work and that this is especially the case when we are talking about refugees fleeing war zones in which they previously enjoyed a decent standard of living. All the anecdotal evidence indicates that there has been a massive displacement of secular, middle class Syrians over the course of the last two or three years. Offering them refuge is not only the right thing to do, it could also be hugely advantageous to us. These are the kinds of people that start businesses and revive flagging local economies. We should use them to do just that.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
Seriously, where will they live in the UK?
Every year half a million or more immigrants arrive and a couple of hundred thousand people leave Britain. In the context of those numbers, 120,000 a year really isn't very much at all.
In case you hadn't noticed, Britain's population is expected to grow quite rapidly in coming decades.
In case you hadn't noticed, Britain already has a problem housing it's existing population.
Being disagreeable to the execrable Flightpath - a man bereft of any redeeming features whatsoever - is one of the great joys of this site.
Flightpath is often extremely rude to people and I have criticised him for that. But politeness is not something you do because the other person deserves it. It is something you do because it is a good thing to do. Otherwise others will see your rudeness and feel you are worthy of being rude to, and so on and so on, and before long it is the whole tone of the site.
Just in terms of "how much good can we do" - a basic utilitarian calculation - suggests we would get more bang for our buck by spending money, and arguably we should be spending more so than we do already, supporting Syrian refugees in situ. Having an asylum seeker in Britain is expensive, not least because of the housing costs, and for that money it would be possible to make a serious difference in the quality of life of far more refugees stuck in the Middle East.
It is true that a Syrian who is in the UK has the right to claim asylum here. But I am not sure it is something we should be incentivising. It's irresponsible to encourage more people to make the dangerous illegal journey - both in the sense that it encourages people to break the law, but more importantly it is putting people at great risk of harm. (An analogy: if I see a football or toy lying in a road, I take pains to remove it when it is safe for me to do so. I am concerned other people, particularly children, will otherwise be incentivised to take undue risks to retrieve it. Somebody who deliberately places a toy in the middle of a business road is downright reprehensible: more so if they go on to gloat to us all about how lovely they must be, since they donate toys to children!)
If we were to have a humanitarian airlift, to help refugees directly and avoid them having to make such a perilous journey, it isn't going to be of 4 million people. So it would have to be carefully targeted. And who would it be targeted at? In my opinion it should focus on those who are least able to cope with being a refugee in the Middle East - those with serious medical conditions (particularly wounds due to the war), the disabled, perhaps the elderly and infirm. Essentially the exact opposite of the kind of people who are coming here now.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
Seriously, where will they live in the UK?
Every year half a million or more immigrants arrive and a couple of hundred thousand people leave Britain. In the context of those numbers, 120,000 a year really isn't very much at all.
In case you hadn't noticed, Britain's population is expected to grow quite rapidly in coming decades.
That's complete nonsense
Currently net migration stands at a record 360k I believe... Most people think that is way too high, and you are suggesting 33% extra isn't very much at all
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
Seriously, where will they live in the UK?
Every year half a million or more immigrants arrive and a couple of hundred thousand people leave Britain. In the context of those numbers, 120,000 a year really isn't very much at all.
In case you hadn't noticed, Britain's population is expected to grow quite rapidly in coming decades.
In what sense is a 20%+ increase on a large base number "not very much at all"? If my house suddenly jumped by 20% in value, or my income increased by 20%, I would say that is very significant.
We can stipulate who we take and where we put them. Not only is it the right thing to do, it could also help to kick-start a number of communities and local economies. From what I can see a lot of the refugees are families. I doubt they are escaping a bloodbath just so they can start another one. They just want to get on with their lives without fear. And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little.
How many are just escaping a bloodbath? Can you guarantee that they will leave their religious biases and hatreds behind them? Many of our home-grown terrorists and descendants of immigrants of many years ago.
Do you really want to impose more foreign cultures on our communities without their consent? Where will they be housed and what jobs would they do? Many of our schools and health services would not have the required capacity. How many would then want to import their families and greater families?
That's the spirit. I thought you were an entrepreneur capable of seeing opportunity and possibility.
I am, but like most entrepreneurs, I get the facts right first and evaluate the risk of failure and the risk of ruining what is there already.
How many of these people are professional families - please can you quantify them and then we can continue this debate.
Overall, I'd say there were hundreds of thousands of middle class, secular families among the millions of refugees. The anecdotal evidence seems to support that - these are people that have the money not just to cross a border into Turkey or Jordan or the Lebanon but to pay to get themselves and their immediate dependents into the EU.
In my experience, entrepreneurs see an opportunity and go for it. They do not spend much time evaluating the risk of failure. They invest in their idea. As a country we can decide who we let in and where we put them.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
Seriously, where will they live in the UK?
Every year half a million or more immigrants arrive and a couple of hundred thousand people leave Britain. In the context of those numbers, 120,000 a year really isn't very much at all.
In case you hadn't noticed, Britain's population is expected to grow quite rapidly in coming decades.
In what sense is a 20%+ increase on a large base number "not very much at all"? If my house suddenly jumped by 20% in value, or my income increased by 20%, I would say that is very significant.
Smug, rich lawyers cocooned in City bubbles need to get out more.
Perhaps the Magic Circle could arrange for all of their staff, including equity partners to spend some time actually living in the more deprived areas of the UK?
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
Yes, but they would quickly aggregate to fewer places or just add their friends/relatives to where they are. Just how would they be employed?
To give Cooper some credit, at least she suggested spreading the 10,000 migrants from Syria equally across the UK. 10 families per town is not much different to my suggestion of 16 people per constituency.
And in 10 years time when those 10 families in each town, have swelled to a 100 or a thousand? And the various long held animosities and grievances that we're watching unfold across the ME kick off here in earnest...
You sound just like Enoch... In which case of course you are right. But at least Cooper did think of spreading the burden, probably the most thoughtful thing a non UKIP politician other than Enoch has said on immigration since 1968 (not a competitive heat)
She dodged the real question though: Is it 10K or 10K per month? If it's not 10K full stop what is the limit?
10K would not be an issue (though not having net migration for the past decade and a half at the levels we've had might've helped there too mind). The real issue is the demand to come here is huge, seriously huge in all likelihood, and thus I cannot fathom what has got into Merkel given she's effectively thrown the doors of Germany open to all. Ok if that's what the German Govt wants to do - fair enough, their call. What she cannot do (though she's trying) is then demand that everyone else takes some of the burden for the consequences of her call.
Surely this is precisely one of the reasons we did not sign up to Schengen in the first place. We wanted to keep some semblance of control on our borders (helped by our geography of course), which is what we have done in this case.
Schengen is coming home to roost as a starry eyed Euro dream not backed by real world European integration - just like the Euro in fact.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
Seriously, where will they live in the UK?
Every year half a million or more immigrants arrive and a couple of hundred thousand people leave Britain. In the context of those numbers, 120,000 a year really isn't very much at all.
In case you hadn't noticed, Britain's population is expected to grow quite rapidly in coming decades.
In what sense is a 20%+ increase on a large base number "not very much at all"? If my house suddenly jumped by 20% in value, or my income increased by 20%, I would say that is very significant.
We can stipulate who we take and where we put them. Not only is it the right thing to do, it could also help to kick-start a number of communities and local economies. From what I can see a lot of the refugees are families. I doubt they are escaping a bloodbath just so they can start another one. They just want to get on with their lives without fear. And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little.
How many are just escaping a bloodbath? Can you guarantee that they will leave their religious biases and hatreds behind them? Many of our home-grown terrorists and descendants of immigrants of many years ago.
Do you really want to impose more foreign cultures on our communities without their consent? Where will they be housed and what jobs would they do? Many of our schools and health services would not have the required capacity. How many would then want to import their families and greater families?
That's the spirit. I thought you were an entrepreneur capable of seeing opportunity and possibility.
I am, but like most entrepreneurs, I get the facts right first and evaluate the risk of failure and the risk of ruining what is there already.
How many of these people are professional families - please can you quantify them and then we can continue this debate.
Overall, I'd say there were hundreds of thousands of middle class, secular families among the millions of refugees. The anecdotal evidence seems to support that - these are people that have the money not just to cross a border into Turkey or Jordan or the Lebanon but to pay to get themselves and their immediate dependents into the EU.
In my experience, entrepreneurs see an opportunity and go for it. They do not spend much time evaluating the risk of failure. They invest in their idea. As a country we can decide who we let in and where we put them.
Comments
Europe's problem with this is not really that it is the EU or Schengen but that it is a continental land mass which makes it difficult to prevent these movements across borders.
In brief, there are vast numbers of people fleeing Syria into Europe. We (western countries) should have done more to help them on the ground but we did not, so they are leaving. Given that millions have been displaced in Syria, most of those fleeing will be genuine refugees. We cannot leave those EU countries closest to the action to bear the brunt of this without our help. So we must play our part. We are one of the wealthiest countries in Europe with a long tradition of accepting refugees. We should continue that tradition.
We should of course do far more on the ground in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan etc to help refugees build a life there and to do our best to dissuade others from following. That is a separate discussion.
"Tragically, what has been “enculturated” into our 18-year-old girls is that they are now so sexually empowered they can take part in the Line Up with no consequences to their emotional or mental health. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11836826/Amanda-Redman-is-wrong-its-horrific-being-an-18-year-old-woman-today.html
Jeremy "poll plot" Corbyn could be very dangerous even with a sniff of power.
[–]MonstrousPolitick
All I can hear is "Hey UK, leave the EU already"
[–]DogBotherer
What happens when/if France stops holding migrants in camps in Calais on our behalf and just starts waving them through?
[–]MonstrousPolitick
Well thats when the army gets deployed unfortunately
[–]DogBotherer
You're proposing they start shooting people in the Chunnel and strafing boats in the Channel?
[–]evilsupper
No, invading France.
Actually I do think she has more actual substance than the others, and has made the occasional effort,if not enough, so she's probably the best of the bunch, for all her deficiencies.
Where I would take issue is with the notion that we are somehow not "doing our bit." As a nation, we've taken in thousands of refugees over the past 25 years, and prior to that, groups like Ugandan, and Malawi Asians. At the same time, thousands of people whose asylum claims have been rejected have remained here, either by disappearing into the shadows, or by spinning out the appeals process long enough to claim the right to remain under Article 8. In some cases, people who have committed serious criminal offences have remained in this country.
So, while British people have shown themselves to be compassionate, there are limits to their compassion. And, this is despite the level of abuse of the asylum system in the past.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
This is not in any way a criticism of the amount we have contributed but the idea we have not done enough to try and help is ridiculous.
Clearly it should have been at least £5 and probably £10 - would have made a significant difference to Labour's finances.
And that story highlights another issue: once you have some family members in one country you will get more through the family reunion and right to family life routes and before long we will have large communities of people from an extremist ridden violent part of the world in our midst. What are the chances of successfully integrating them?
The focus has to be on (1) getting the Arab world to take responsibility for its problems; (2) dissuading the migrants from coming to Europe; and (3) doing more to create places of safety within the Middle East. Then - and only with the consent of our populations - set out strict criteria and limits for those we are prepared to invite in and enforce those properly.
http://labourlist.org/2015/09/solidarity-will-keep-labour-together-through-tough-times-says-chuka-umunna/
http://labourlist.org/2015/09/andy-burnham-pledges-to-fight-nationalism/
http://labourlist.org/2015/08/jeremy-corbyn-dismisses-hysteria-over-his-policies-and-says-hell-defeat-the-tories-in-2020-with-peoples-politics/
Well said Mr Tyndall.
What will poison the well is if he comes home and claims a modest renegotiation is a transformation, or if he claims a few changes to benefits will substantially reduce EU migration. If he does that, we will get a repeat of the Red Tory thing in Scotland, only this time it will be Blue Europhiles. Us Conservatives can handle our leadership disagreeing with us. What we can't accept is if they try to deceive us and the country to get their way, on a matter of such national importance.
Of course, this can all be avoided if Cameron defies expectations with the renegotiation as he has done in other areas in the past.
Commandeering Pontins etc would come first, surely?
In my view, the differences between UK and say Germany, are:
1 - UK Overseas Aid spending is pretty much double Germany's - 0.7% vs 0.4% of GDP.
2 - Germany has 1.8 million empty homes. We have 700k.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/europe-11m-empty-properties-enough-house-homeless-continent-twice
(Spain: 3.4m).
3 - They seem to struggle to spend the UK aid budget anyway. IIRC it is heavily weighted to the the Final Quarter. Hardly surprising when Mr Cameron has done a Gordon and measured his success by money spent, not outcomes achieved.
4 - Germany has a declining population, and needs people. We do not.
Logic says let Germany take in people.
Meanwhile let us use a large chunk of our "aid" bidget for "aid". Use perhaps £2-3bn per year to mantain refugees in Turkey or Cyprus or wherever. That is an appropriate response using the resources we have got.
So who will form a national govt with the Tories? The lib dems??
Its incredible how wide of the mark you have swerved from your opening paragraphs.
Europe represents democracies which are fundamentally interested in helping people. So migrants are not likely to go to Russia, or China and the USA is too far away.
Sadly, Labour showed weakness when it came to the option of helping Syrian rebels and some tory backbenchers like David Davis (both of them!) showed stupidity. So much for it being the left of the tory party that is not willing to act!
This background makes it almost impossible to strike at places where the problem is fermented. It set up the problem of ISIS in Syria and now we have the daft situation where even when RAF pilots are on secondment to the USAF the opposition and media complain about them bombing Syrian targets. So really - a national government?
The UN should be the place where these issues are resolved but it too is spineless.
The problem social conservatives have is they create and propagate these wild stories, which undermines our credibility. Why can't we just be confident saying that casual sex among teenagers is a hazard to both physical and psychological health, and people would be healthier and happier if they waited until they were in mature, respectful, long-term and monogamous relationships before they started being sexually active?
EDIT Sorry it was the working class that weren't a monolith, but the principle is the same
Do you really want to impose more foreign cultures on our communities without their consent? Where will they be housed and what jobs would they do? Many of our schools and health services would not have the required capacity. How many would then want to import their families and greater families?
Pillock.
People aren't mushrooms. You can't just plant them somewhere and expect them to stay there.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Tyndall, at the time ISIS didn't even exist, and the democratic forces [now, seemingly, barely existent] were much stronger. Intervention could've made things worse. Or better. We'll never know.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
If we are talking about reviving dying economies it would imply Greece, Spain, Italy and France.
I do not think these mealy mouthed limp Labour figures, as evidenced by Mr Palmer for instance, have any guts or nous to stop the leftward take over of Labour by Corbyn's anti Capitalist anti West allies.
But why should Umunna's views be suddenly given credence? He collapsed like a pack of cards at the first whiff of gunpowder. The notion that he has any bottle that he has any judgement is risible.
2) It might be considered a little bit of a vote loser, and possibly politically courageous with a slim majority
The scale of the problem is not 10^4. It is at least an order and probably two orders of magnitude greater. Remember there are already a million Syrian refugees in Lebanon alone. The numbers displaced in the Middle East are O(10^6).
The example of evacuees is interesting because it enable MILLIONS to be moved and offered temporary sanctuary.
Of course, the affluent had to play their part. Rather than just shrugging their shoulders and saying the councils can sort this out. Which I also rather like.
How many of these people are professional families - please can you quantify them and then we can continue this debate.
'And like all immigrants they will work hard and expect little'
..given how often you pull others up for attributing one set of views/attributes to a mass of people
However, my point about the relative strength of the democratic opposition remains.
Mr. Observer, that doesn't suggest to me that they'll simply be directed to their appointed town and stay there. Nor that it would be legal to force them to live in a given town.
2) I think one of the main gripes is that the burden of immigration falls mainly on the poor. This puts the burden on the affluent. It could be a vote winner.
Still, it would be interesting to watch Cooper's plan, the angry young criminal men being rejected for asylum, whilst deserving families are let in. That's the idea isn't it?
And of course Yvette will be explaining personally to those indigenous Brits on the housing lists, why they're sliding down the queue, in favour of the thousands of grateful new voters she's prioritising.
However, you could still benefit from reading. I drew attention to the need to do much more on the ground locally (indeed at Christmas 2013 when I made the point that taking all refugees from this conflict was impractical and we needed to focus on support on the ground I was roundly abused from all directions).
The affluent pay their part by paying taxes. If we really reach the point where everyone needs to contribute by opening up their doors for billeting, I expect I shall do my part. But since we have not got anywhere near that point at present, I am assuming that you're just being an arsehole. The rest of your posts this morning would support that conclusion.
We could have aided the sane rebels and undermined ISIS from the start. Well done Miliband and that greatest self server of all David Davis.
As others have said this wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a problem if we hadn't had a decades worth of mass economic migration. Now people are fed up of it when the actual deserving need help
I am almost of the opinion that we should be looking at a Churchill/Stalin scenario here. Stalin was undoubtedly one of the worst murderous dictators of the twentieth century. But he ended up as an ally for a short time because we shared a similar - and worse - enemy. We ignored the fact he arrested and executed other allies - chief amongst them the Poles. We let him fight his war of conquest and aggression against the Finns whose only crime had been to be invaded by Russia when the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact had been in force and so ended up on the wrong side by accident when Germany decided to attack Russia in 1941. We did all of this because he was fighting what we considered to be the greater evil.
Personally I would see the current Syrian regime in the same light. This is not to excuse for a minute their crimes. But for now at least IS are a greater threat to both the region and the West than Assad. Dealing with Assad can come later. Right now we need all the allies we can get in the region.
And the pleading face of the person number 1,000,001 on the list.
Nobody who advocates "some" of these migrants coming here will give you their criteria for the cut-off. Yes, I'm looking at you, Yvette. Until they do, there are only two viable options:
a) take none of them (yet be generous with foreign aid to assist them where they are); or
b) take all of them
To actually achieve what Cooper wants, you would have to build internment camps.
That is not true.
In case you hadn't noticed, Britain's population is expected to grow quite rapidly in coming decades.
Allison Pearson is not the only one.
Here's Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett from 18 months ago on the Private School curse of "seagulling".
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/27/porn-influence-real-sex-education-online-fantasies
Sea gullible-ing more like.
It is true that a Syrian who is in the UK has the right to claim asylum here. But I am not sure it is something we should be incentivising. It's irresponsible to encourage more people to make the dangerous illegal journey - both in the sense that it encourages people to break the law, but more importantly it is putting people at great risk of harm. (An analogy: if I see a football or toy lying in a road, I take pains to remove it when it is safe for me to do so. I am concerned other people, particularly children, will otherwise be incentivised to take undue risks to retrieve it. Somebody who deliberately places a toy in the middle of a business road is downright reprehensible: more so if they go on to gloat to us all about how lovely they must be, since they donate toys to children!)
If we were to have a humanitarian airlift, to help refugees directly and avoid them having to make such a perilous journey, it isn't going to be of 4 million people. So it would have to be carefully targeted. And who would it be targeted at? In my opinion it should focus on those who are least able to cope with being a refugee in the Middle East - those with serious medical conditions (particularly wounds due to the war), the disabled, perhaps the elderly and infirm. Essentially the exact opposite of the kind of people who are coming here now.
Currently net migration stands at a record 360k I believe... Most people think that is way too high, and you are suggesting 33% extra isn't very much at all
In my experience, entrepreneurs see an opportunity and go for it. They do not spend much time evaluating the risk of failure. They invest in their idea. As a country we can decide who we let in and where we put them.
Perhaps the Magic Circle could arrange for all of their staff, including equity partners to spend some time actually living in the more deprived areas of the UK?
10K would not be an issue (though not having net migration for the past decade and a half at the levels we've had might've helped there too mind). The real issue is the demand to come here is huge, seriously huge in all likelihood, and thus I cannot fathom what has got into Merkel given she's effectively thrown the doors of Germany open to all. Ok if that's what the German Govt wants to do - fair enough, their call. What she cannot do (though she's trying) is then demand that everyone else takes some of the burden for the consequences of her call.
Surely this is precisely one of the reasons we did not sign up to Schengen in the first place. We wanted to keep some semblance of control on our borders (helped by our geography of course), which is what we have done in this case.
Schengen is coming home to roost as a starry eyed Euro dream not backed by real world European integration - just like the Euro in fact.