My point is they moved to the nearest safe country, ie. India. They didn't gallivant halfway across the globe.
Hardly a fair example, Bangladesh was part of India in living memory during that war, many people would have considered fleeing to India as fleeing to another part of their own country.
*Forgive the sweeping generalisation of the turbulent modern history of the Indian sub-continent.
'I think most people would differentiate between refugees and economic migrants (or worse).
Maybe, but 'most people' doesn't include those who actually make the decisions. In my view we don;t have a immigration criteria, they simply doesn't exist. Whether you get in or not, and stay or not, appears to be utterly arbitrary.
Presumably this is the effects of migration, as the privately employable desperately flee south of the border to the safe haven of Cameron's England.
That could possibly happen, though to what extent I'm not sure. My parents visited an English relative who lives in Edinburgh earlier this year and she said it wasn't the nicest atmosphere during the referendum campaign.
I live in Edinburgh, and am (at least I was the last time I checked) English. The atmosphere was fine during the indyref.
The atmosphere is still ok, but I'm not ok with the way the government is going. I was a yesser, but am now a no.
Anything in particular changing your mind?
The SNP and their policies
But if you get independence the SNP will vanish in a puff of logic...
"[In] 1971 during the Bangladesh Liberation War [...it] is estimated that around 10 million East Bengali refugees entered India during the early months of the war, of whom 1.5 million may have stayed back after Bangladesh became independent."[10]
I'm not suggesting all 4 million refugees seek refuge in a single nation. There are 193 member states in the UN, and they should all take a proportion.
They are a very short journey for a number of very rich, very spacious Muslim countries and yet for some reason they seem unable to take even handful of their co-religionists.
''I'm saying that we should tackle the Syrian refugee crisis for what it is, not lump it together with a completely separate immigration debate. ''
I agree. If the 10,000 a month we were taking were genuine refugees, genuinely seeking refuge and fully intending to return when peace came back, I would be right with you.
Our immigration system cannot deliver this, however. nor anything remotely close to it. Nor anything within a couple of thousand light years of it.
The reality is that Syria is going to be a murderous shithole for the foreseeable future full of lunatics (or friends as Jeremy likes to call them) killing people for the stupidest of reasons, even by the standards of religion which is a pretty low bar. Those that leave Syria are not going back, at least in any appreciable numbers.
Ditto those that leave Iraq, Jordan (when it becomes engulfed in this) and the Lebanon (ditto). Where does a policy of asylum stop? Are we to invite all those from Somalia and Eritrea here as well?
I don't know what the answer is. I feel desperately sorry for those who lives are being wreaked by lunatics and are living in fear. But the world cannot live here.
They probably can try in JC's world, and given the shared initials, he could probably feed them. Not sure about housing them.
Since the start of the civil war in Syria, over 7.5 million people have become displaced, of which over 4 million have fled the country. Approximately one third of a million people have been killed.
Before the conflict began the population was roughly 23 million. So roughly one third of the total population have been displaced by the conflict and one fifth of the population have fled and are now refugees.
Most of the refugees have sought sanctuary in neighbouring countries: Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Turkey has accepted over 1.7 million refugees. Lebanon has accepted over 667k refugees (about a seventh of its total population).
This is a huge, huge humanitarian disaster.
I get that there are real and pressing needs to do with immigration (both legal and illegal) and Europe, I really do. But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants.
I have no pity for the Syrians or the Lebanese. They could have had peace with Israel from the 1949 armistice and created a Levant Heaven. Instead their leaders urged war and the destruction of Israel, and the killing of Jews wether Israelis or not.
"[In] 1971 during the Bangladesh Liberation War [...it] is estimated that around 10 million East Bengali refugees entered India during the early months of the war, of whom 1.5 million may have stayed back after Bangladesh became independent."[10]
I'm not suggesting all 4 million refugees seek refuge in a single nation. There are 193 member states in the UN, and they should all take a proportion.
They are a very short journey for a number of very rich, very spacious Muslim countries and yet for some reason they seem unable to take even handful of their co-religionists.
If this disaster were being handled properly by the UN, then most (or a significant proportion anyway) refugees would be settled close by in neighbouring countries with financial assistance from all UN members pooled together.
My point is they moved to the nearest safe country, ie. India. They didn't gallivant halfway across the globe.
Hardly a fair example, Bangladesh was part of India in living memory during that war, many people would have considered fleeing to India as fleeing to another part of their own country.
*Forgive the sweeping generalisation of the turbulent modern history of the Indian sub-continent.
Is not Syria bordered by other Arabic and/or Muslim countries?
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
Since the start of the civil war in Syria, over 7.5 million people have become displaced, of which over 4 million have fled the country. Approximately one third of a million people have been killed.
Before the conflict began the population was roughly 23 million. So roughly one third of the total population have been displaced by the conflict and one fifth of the population have fled and are now refugees.
Most of the refugees have sought sanctuary in neighbouring countries: Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Turkey has accepted over 1.7 million refugees. Lebanon has accepted over 667k refugees (about a seventh of its total population).
This is a huge, huge humanitarian disaster.
I get that there are real and pressing needs to do with immigration (both legal and illegal) and Europe, I really do. But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants.
I have no pity for the Syrians or the Lebanese. They could have had peace with Israel from the 1949 armistice and created a Levant Heaven. Instead their leaders urged war and the destruction of Israel, and the killing of Jews wether Israelis or not.
So no sympathy for the syrians because of the actions of a govt their grandparents may or may not have supported? That's quite a North Korean style attitude, punishing 2 succeeding generations
My point is they moved to the nearest safe country, ie. India. They didn't gallivant halfway across the globe.
Hardly a fair example, Bangladesh was part of India in living memory during that war, many people would have considered fleeing to India as fleeing to another part of their own country.
*Forgive the sweeping generalisation of the turbulent modern history of the Indian sub-continent.
Is not Syria bordered by other Arabic and/or Muslim countries?
I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer.
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
Since the start of the civil war in Syria, over 7.5 million people have become displaced, of which over 4 million have fled the country. Approximately one third of a million people have been killed.
Before the conflict began the population was roughly 23 million. So roughly one third of the total population have been displaced by the conflict and one fifth of the population have fled and are now refugees.
Most of the refugees have sought sanctuary in neighbouring countries: Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Turkey has accepted over 1.7 million refugees. Lebanon has accepted over 667k refugees (about a seventh of its total population).
This is a huge, huge humanitarian disaster.
I get that there are real and pressing needs to do with immigration (both legal and illegal) and Europe, I really do. But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants.
I have no pity for the Syrians or the Lebanese. They could have had peace with Israel from the 1949 armistice and created a Levant Heaven. Instead their leaders urged war and the destruction of Israel, and the killing of Jews wether Israelis or not.
My point is they moved to the nearest safe country, ie. India. They didn't gallivant halfway across the globe.
Hardly a fair example, Bangladesh was part of India in living memory during that war, many people would have considered fleeing to India as fleeing to another part of their own country.
*Forgive the sweeping generalisation of the turbulent modern history of the Indian sub-continent.
Is not Syria bordered by other Arabic and/or Muslim countries?
It might be wise to remember that there are a few sunni - shia type conflicts going on that might complicate matters somewhat
''But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants. ''
Trouble is, that is exactly what our authorities do. The evidence is they are completely incapable of distinguishing one type of migrant from another. It is all the same to them.
What you are in effect saying is 'can other British people please put up with a total mixed bag of people to assuage my conscience'.
I think most people would differentiate between refugees and economic migrants (or worse). Those immigrants with credible ID identifying them as from a recognised war zone should make themselves known as soon as they are in the EU and be a priority to be settled if their status checks out. Any immigrant in the EU not putting themselves into this procedure is obviously illegal and should be dealt with as such.
There's a roaring trade in Syrian passports apparently !
I heard that on the radio this morning (BBC though) but I can't believe they can be any good. Surely not good enough to fool anyone responsible.
Since the start of the civil war in Syria, over 7.5 million people have become displaced, of which over 4 million have fled the country. Approximately one third of a million people have been killed.
Before the conflict began the population was roughly 23 million. So roughly one third of the total population have been displaced by the conflict and one fifth of the population have fled and are now refugees.
Most of the refugees have sought sanctuary in neighbouring countries: Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Turkey has accepted over 1.7 million refugees. Lebanon has accepted over 667k refugees (about a seventh of its total population).
This is a huge, huge humanitarian disaster.
I get that there are real and pressing needs to do with immigration (both legal and illegal) and Europe, I really do. But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants.
I have no pity for the Syrians or the Lebanese. They could have had peace with Israel from the 1949 armistice and created a Levant Heaven. Instead their leaders urged war and the destruction of Israel, and the killing of Jews wether Israelis or not.
"[In] 1971 during the Bangladesh Liberation War [...it] is estimated that around 10 million East Bengali refugees entered India during the early months of the war, of whom 1.5 million may have stayed back after Bangladesh became independent."[10]
I'm not suggesting all 4 million refugees seek refuge in a single nation. There are 193 member states in the UN, and they should all take a proportion.
They are a very short journey for a number of very rich, very spacious Muslim countries and yet for some reason they seem unable to take even handful of their co-religionists.
If this disaster were being handled properly by the UN, then most (or a significant proportion anyway) refugees would be settled close by in neighbouring countries with financial assistance from all UN members pooled together.
Yes I agree. However since there isn't even a token refugee camp in Saudi, Kuwait, Iran etc, it rather suggests they are hoping the problem will go away without involving them. If there was a small camp there then I can see the merit of international agencies, or even national governments offering further money and aid to help them ramp up the effort.
My point is they moved to the nearest safe country, ie. India. They didn't gallivant halfway across the globe.
Hardly a fair example, Bangladesh was part of India in living memory during that war, many people would have considered fleeing to India as fleeing to another part of their own country.
*Forgive the sweeping generalisation of the turbulent modern history of the Indian sub-continent.
Is not Syria bordered by other Arabic and/or Muslim countries?
It might be wise to remember that there are a few sunni - shia type conflicts going on that might complicate matters somewhat
Most of the Shias in Syria are the Alawites, which are still safely under Assad's control (he's an Alawite himself). In the Eastern area, there are some small minority groups, like Yezidis and Christians who are in danger, but most fleeing will be Sunni Muslim Arabs.
''But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants. ''
Trouble is, that is exactly what our authorities do. The evidence is they are completely incapable of distinguishing one type of migrant from another. It is all the same to them.
What you are in effect saying is 'can other British people please put up with a total mixed bag of people to assuage my conscience'.
I think most people would differentiate between refugees and economic migrants (or worse). Those immigrants with credible ID identifying them as from a recognised war zone should make themselves known as soon as they are in the EU and be a priority to be settled if their status checks out. Any immigrant in the EU not putting themselves into this procedure is obviously illegal and should be dealt with as such.
There's a roaring trade in Syrian passports apparently !
I heard that on the radio this morning (BBC though) but I can't believe they can be any good. Surely not good enough to fool anyone responsible.
Roma from Albania, Kosovo, Romania and Bulgaria are probably buying the Syrian passports, whilst economic migrants from various west african states try and purchase various east African passports would be my bet.
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
Is her house big enough for 10,000 "refugees"?
Cooper has at least 2 homes, one of which the taxpayer is funding.
Why hasn't she taken the lead and offered to house asylum seekers in one of them?
''But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants. ''
Trouble is, that is exactly what our authorities do. The evidence is they are completely incapable of distinguishing one type of migrant from another. It is all the same to them.
What you are in effect saying is 'can other British people please put up with a total mixed bag of people to assuage my conscience'.
I think most people would differentiate between refugees and economic migrants (or worse). Those immigrants with credible ID identifying them as from a recognised war zone should make themselves known as soon as they are in the EU and be a priority to be settled if their status checks out. Any immigrant in the EU not putting themselves into this procedure is obviously illegal and should be dealt with as such.
There's a roaring trade in Syrian passports apparently !
I heard that on the radio this morning (BBC though) but I can't believe they can be any good. Surely not good enough to fool anyone responsible.
Roma from Albania, Kosovo, Romania and Bulgaria are probably buying the Syrian passports, whilst economic migrants from various west african states try and purchase various east African passports would be my bet.
''But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants. ''
Trouble is, that is exactly what our authorities do. The evidence is they are completely incapable of distinguishing one type of migrant from another. It is all the same to them.
What you are in effect saying is 'can other British people please put up with a total mixed bag of people to assuage my conscience'.
I think most people would differentiate between refugees and economic migrants (or worse). Those immigrants with credible ID identifying them as from a recognised war zone should make themselves known as soon as they are in the EU and be a priority to be settled if their status checks out. Any immigrant in the EU not putting themselves into this procedure is obviously illegal and should be dealt with as such.
There's a roaring trade in Syrian passports apparently !
I heard that on the radio this morning (BBC though) but I can't believe they can be any good. Surely not good enough to fool anyone responsible.
Roma from Albania, Kosovo, Romania and Bulgaria are probably buying the Syrian passports, whilst economic migrants from various west african states try and purchase various east African passports would be my bet.
That sounds about right, I have heard similar figures mentioned for US or UK passports here in the Philippines. One of the reason why although you are officially supposed to carry your passport with you, most people carry a photocopy of the data page.
Since the start of the civil war in Syria, over 7.5 million people have become displaced, of which over 4 million have fled the country. Approximately one third of a million people have been killed.
Before the conflict began the population was roughly 23 million. So roughly one third of the total population have been displaced by the conflict and one fifth of the population have fled and are now refugees.
Most of the refugees have sought sanctuary in neighbouring countries: Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Turkey has accepted over 1.7 million refugees. Lebanon has accepted over 667k refugees (about a seventh of its total population).
This is a huge, huge humanitarian disaster.
I get that there are real and pressing needs to do with immigration (both legal and illegal) and Europe, I really do. But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants.
I have no pity for the Syrians or the Lebanese. They could have had peace with Israel from the 1949 armistice and created a Levant Heaven. Instead their leaders urged war and the destruction of Israel, and the killing of Jews wether Israelis or not.
Few of these displaced people would have been born in 1949.
Ask and ye shall receive - Comrade Corbyn appear to know remarkably little. Firefighters retire earlier as do police officers.
Workers in 'physically demanding jobs' should be allowed to retire earlier than those who work in white-collar office jobs, Jeremy Corbyn has said.
The left-wing Labour leadership favourite said people in manual jobs should not be asked to 'work until they drop'.
He said construction workers, firefighters and other paramedics should be exempted from the rising retirement age, which is set to hit 68 over the next 30 years.
Mr Corbyn accused the government of creating a 'two-tier retirement' where rich people can retire early while ordinary workers are forced to carry out manual labour well into their 60s.
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
My point is they moved to the nearest safe country, ie. India. They didn't gallivant halfway across the globe.
Hardly a fair example, Bangladesh was part of India in living memory during that war, many people would have considered fleeing to India as fleeing to another part of their own country.
*Forgive the sweeping generalisation of the turbulent modern history of the Indian sub-continent.
Is not Syria bordered by other Arabic and/or Muslim countries?
It might be wise to remember that there are a few sunni - shia type conflicts going on that might complicate matters somewhat
Most of the Shias in Syria are the Alawites, which are still safely under Assad's control (he's an Alawite himself). In the Eastern area, there are some small minority groups, like Yezidis and Christians who are in danger, but most fleeing will be Sunni Muslim Arabs.
Exactly. And there are plenty of Sunni Muslim countries they can go and take refuge in. This is an Arab problem and the Arabs should bloody well take the lead in helping to resolve it.
"I told you this yesterday, and Mr Tyndall has told you this several times and yet you still are not listening."
Sorry Indigo but I have never said that EEA membership meant anything different to the EU as far as immigration is concerned.
I slant towards the idea of EEA membership after Brexit as it provides a clear indication of what to expect as far as business is concerned after we leave the EU but it will depend how things develop with mass migration as to whether I consider this a price worth paying for the slightly easier access to markets.
To be honest with the way things are going I don't think it will be the UK that breaks freedom of movement whether we are inside or out.
"She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night."
Why do the interviewers allow them to get away with waffling? Jezza would cut up rough if confronted but Yvette is hardly likely to lean over and nut him.
Exactly. And there are plenty of Sunni Muslim countries they can go and take refuge in. This is an Arab problem and the Arabs should bloody well take the lead in helping to resolve it.
so from syria, it would be best to just stroll through iraq to get to saudi?
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
It would be worth spelling out how often and in what numbers Britain has taken in refugees. There were the Huguenots, of course, given shelter because they were fellow Protestants. There were Jews fleeing the Tsarist pogroms. The Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. Some Jews in the 1930s though not a huge number; some Czechs and Hungarians after the various uprisings under Communism and the Poles who remained after WW2.
This is off the top of my head. Are there any other significant groups of refugees Britain has taken in?
It seems to me that Cooper may be overstating the case when she says that Britain has historically taken hundreds of thousands of people from far away countries. Britain has - historically - been an exporter of people and has not had a huge influx of refugees. The country in Europe which has had the biggest influx has been Germany - at the end of WW2.
My point is they moved to the nearest safe country, ie. India. They didn't gallivant halfway across the globe.
Hardly a fair example, Bangladesh was part of India in living memory during that war, many people would have considered fleeing to India as fleeing to another part of their own country.
*Forgive the sweeping generalisation of the turbulent modern history of the Indian sub-continent.
Is not Syria bordered by other Arabic and/or Muslim countries?
It might be wise to remember that there are a few sunni - shia type conflicts going on that might complicate matters somewhat
Most of the Shias in Syria are the Alawites, which are still safely under Assad's control (he's an Alawite himself). In the Eastern area, there are some small minority groups, like Yezidis and Christians who are in danger, but most fleeing will be Sunni Muslim Arabs.
But surely since Assad only controls a small geographical area of Syria, most of these Sunnis are now under glorious rebel control, so why are they fleeing?
There have also been tens of thousands fleeing TO Damascus into Assad's evil clutches, how is that to be explained?
My point is they moved to the nearest safe country, ie. India. They didn't gallivant halfway across the globe.
Hardly a fair example, Bangladesh was part of India in living memory during that war, many people would have considered fleeing to India as fleeing to another part of their own country.
*Forgive the sweeping generalisation of the turbulent modern history of the Indian sub-continent.
Is not Syria bordered by other Arabic and/or Muslim countries?
It might be wise to remember that there are a few sunni - shia type conflicts going on that might complicate matters somewhat
Most of the Shias in Syria are the Alawites, which are still safely under Assad's control (he's an Alawite himself). In the Eastern area, there are some small minority groups, like Yezidis and Christians who are in danger, but most fleeing will be Sunni Muslim Arabs.
But surely since Assad only controls a small geographical area of Syria, most of these Sunnis are now under glorious rebel control, so why are they fleeing?
There have also been tens of thousands fleeing TO Damascus into Assad's evil clutches, how is that to be explained?
Actually, I think most of the Sunni Muslims in those areas are fleeing north into Turkey.
My point is they moved to the nearest safe country, ie. India. They didn't gallivant halfway across the globe.
Hardly a fair example, Bangladesh was part of India in living memory during that war, many people would have considered fleeing to India as fleeing to another part of their own country.
*Forgive the sweeping generalisation of the turbulent modern history of the Indian sub-continent.
Is not Syria bordered by other Arabic and/or Muslim countries?
It might be wise to remember that there are a few sunni - shia type conflicts going on that might complicate matters somewhat
Most of the Shias in Syria are the Alawites, which are still safely under Assad's control (he's an Alawite himself). In the Eastern area, there are some small minority groups, like Yezidis and Christians who are in danger, but most fleeing will be Sunni Muslim Arabs.
But surely since Assad only controls a small geographical area of Syria, most of these Sunnis are now under glorious rebel control, so why are they fleeing?
There have also been tens of thousands fleeing TO Damascus into Assad's evil clutches, how is that to be explained?
Exactly. And there are plenty of Sunni Muslim countries they can go and take refuge in. This is an Arab problem and the Arabs should bloody well take the lead in helping to resolve it.
so from syria, it would be best to just stroll through iraq to get to saudi?
Since the start of the civil war in Syria, over 7.5 million people have become displaced, of which over 4 million have fled the country. Approximately one third of a million people have been killed.
Before the conflict began the population was roughly 23 million. So roughly one third of the total population have been displaced by the conflict and one fifth of the population have fled and are now refugees.
Most of the refugees have sought sanctuary in neighbouring countries: Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Turkey has accepted over 1.7 million refugees. Lebanon has accepted over 667k refugees (about a seventh of its total population).
This is a huge, huge humanitarian disaster.
I get that there are real and pressing needs to do with immigration (both legal and illegal) and Europe, I really do. But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants.
I have no pity for the Syrians or the Lebanese. They could have had peace with Israel from the 1949 armistice and created a Levant Heaven. Instead their leaders urged war and the destruction of Israel, and the killing of Jews wether Israelis or not.
Few of these displaced people would have been born in 1949.
If their countries had had peace with Israel for 66 years there wouldn't have been any displaced people or other refugees in the first place. Instead this generation would have been reaping the benefits from those years of peace. Your whole premise is false.
Exactly. And there are plenty of Sunni Muslim countries they can go and take refuge in. This is an Arab problem and the Arabs should bloody well take the lead in helping to resolve it.
so from syria, it would be best to just stroll through iraq to get to saudi?
No - not a stroll. But the Arab countries are rich enough to be able to assist their fellow Arabs, their fellow religionists if they were minded to. They are doing nothing - or not enough - and seeking to make it someone else's problem. We should remind them forcefully day in day out in every way and in every forum we can that they need to step up and help deal with a problem on their doorstep for their fellow Muslims.
We're always hearing about the global ummah, about how Muslims in one country are affected by what happens to Muslims elsewhere (usually as an explanation for why some youth has decided to blow people up - but never mind). Well now's the chance for that global ummah to do something for its fellow Muslims.
If the Saudis can pay for imams to preach God knows what all over the world, they can pay to house suffering Syrians in some style, frankly. Rather than fund terror groups which make the problem worse, perhaps they might fund some charitable relief.
Exactly. And there are plenty of Sunni Muslim countries they can go and take refuge in. This is an Arab problem and the Arabs should bloody well take the lead in helping to resolve it.
so from syria, it would be best to just stroll through iraq to get to saudi?
It is certainly easy enough to get to Saudi Arabia from Jordan, which has a land border with Syria.
The whole of the Gulf is accessible from the Jordanian port of Aqaba.
These journeys are much easier than, say, travelling to Northern Europe.
It's inevitable at some point. Not enough unqualified support for the Union, too much desire for independence among too many and too many others who could be swayed to back those.
I'm confused. Is that Unite the Union?
By The Union I mean the union of our nations. Not enough people are passionately in support of it.
Dr. Prasannan, and others, I recall reading recently that Jordan's got quite a lot of refugees and is wary of taking more. There's some concern there could be a serious risk to the country's regime falling, or at least being under threat.
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
It would be worth spelling out how often and in what numbers Britain has taken in refugees. There were the Huguenots, of course, given shelter because they were fellow Protestants. There were Jews fleeing the Tsarist pogroms. The Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. Some Jews in the 1930s though not a huge number; some Czechs and Hungarians after the various uprisings under Communism and the Poles who remained after WW2.
This is off the top of my head. Are there any other significant groups of refugees Britain has taken in?
It seems to me that Cooper may be overstating the case when she says that Britain has historically taken hundreds of thousands of people from far away countries. Britain has - historically - been an exporter of people and has not had a huge influx of refugees. The country in Europe which has had the biggest influx has been Germany - at the end of WW2.
Huguenots - about 50,000 (over about 60 years) Russian Jews - about 140,000 (over about 40 years) Central European Jews - about 90,000 (over about 10 years) Ugandan Asians - about 60,000 (over about five years) Poles - about 120,000 (over about 20 years)
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
It would be worth spelling out how often and in what numbers Britain has taken in refugees. There were the Huguenots, of course, given shelter because they were fellow Protestants. There were Jews fleeing the Tsarist pogroms. The Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. Some Jews in the 1930s though not a huge number; some Czechs and Hungarians after the various uprisings under Communism and the Poles who remained after WW2.
This is off the top of my head. Are there any other significant groups of refugees Britain has taken in?
It seems to me that Cooper may be overstating the case when she says that Britain has historically taken hundreds of thousands of people from far away countries. Britain has - historically - been an exporter of people and has not had a huge influx of refugees. The country in Europe which has had the biggest influx has been Germany - at the end of WW2.
"Both before and after the 1708 passage of the Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act, an estimated 50,000 Protestant Walloons and Huguenots fled to England, with many moving on to Ireland and elsewhere. In relative terms, this was one of the largest waves of immigration ever of a single ethnic community to Britain."[53]
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
It would be worth spelling out how often and in what numbers Britain has taken in refugees. There were the Huguenots, of course, given shelter because they were fellow Protestants. There were Jews fleeing the Tsarist pogroms. The Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. Some Jews in the 1930s though not a huge number; some Czechs and Hungarians after the various uprisings under Communism and the Poles who remained after WW2.
This is off the top of my head. Are there any other significant groups of refugees Britain has taken in?
It seems to me that Cooper may be overstating the case when she says that Britain has historically taken hundreds of thousands of people from far away countries. Britain has - historically - been an exporter of people and has not had a huge influx of refugees. The country in Europe which has had the biggest influx has been Germany - at the end of WW2.
Huguenots - about 50,000 (over about 60 years) Russian Jews - about 140,000 (over about 40 years) Central European Jews - about 90,000 (over about 10 years) Ugandan Asians - about 60,000 (over about five years) Poles - about 120,000 (over about 20 years)
Dr. Prasannan, and others, I recall reading recently that Jordan's got quite a lot of refugees and is wary of taking more. There's some concern there could be a serious risk to the country's regime falling, or at least being under threat.
Has she there is a limit to how much a talented businesswoman can do i suppose
Dr. Prasannan, and others, I recall reading recently that Jordan's got quite a lot of refugees and is wary of taking more. There's some concern there could be a serious risk to the country's regime falling, or at least being under threat.
Mr Dancer. I was answering Mr dugarbandier's message about how to get to Saudi. He suggested Iraq, but Jordan's eastern area is much narrower
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
It would be worth spelling out how often and in what numbers Britain has taken in refugees. There were the Huguenots, of course, given shelter because they were fellow Protestants. There were Jews fleeing the Tsarist pogroms. The Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. Some Jews in the 1930s though not a huge number; some Czechs and Hungarians after the various uprisings under Communism and the Poles who remained after WW2.
This is off the top of my head. Are there any other significant groups of refugees Britain has taken in?
It seems to me that Cooper may be overstating the case when she says that Britain has historically taken hundreds of thousands of people from far away countries. Britain has - historically - been an exporter of people and has not had a huge influx of refugees. The country in Europe which has had the biggest influx has been Germany - at the end of WW2.
Huguenots - about 50,000 (over about 60 years) Russian Jews - about 140,000 (over about 40 years) Central European Jews - about 90,000 (over about 10 years) Ugandan Asians - about 60,000 (over about five years) Poles - about 120,000 (over about 20 years)
Exactly. And there are plenty of Sunni Muslim countries they can go and take refuge in. This is an Arab problem and the Arabs should bloody well take the lead in helping to resolve it.
so from syria, it would be best to just stroll through iraq to get to saudi?
No - not a stroll. But the Arab countries are rich enough to be able to assist their fellow Arabs, their fellow religionists if they were minded to. They are doing nothing - or not enough - and seeking to make it someone else's problem. We should remind them forcefully day in day out in every way and in every forum we can that they need to step up and help deal with a problem on their doorstep for their fellow Muslims.
We're always hearing about the global ummah, about how Muslims in one country are affected by what happens to Muslims elsewhere (usually as an explanation for why some youth has decided to blow people up - but never mind). Well now's the chance for that global ummah to do something for its fellow Muslims.
If the Saudis can pay for imams to preach God knows what all over the world, they can pay to house suffering Syrians in some style, frankly. Rather than fund terror groups which make the problem worse, perhaps they might fund some charitable relief.
I agree strongly with this.
In fact, if the figures of migrants in the Lebanon and Jordan are right, then there is a real risk that these countries too will become destabilised and still more of the Arab World will become a devastated war zone.
It is in the Saudi’s (& Qatari’s & Kuwaiti’s) own interests to act.
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
It would be worth spelling out how often and in what numbers Britain has taken in refugees. There were the Huguenots, of course, given shelter because they were fellow Protestants. There were Jews fleeing the Tsarist pogroms. The Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. Some Jews in the 1930s though not a huge number; some Czechs and Hungarians after the various uprisings under Communism and the Poles who remained after WW2.
This is off the top of my head. Are there any other significant groups of refugees Britain has taken in?
It seems to me that Cooper may be overstating the case when she says that Britain has historically taken hundreds of thousands of people from far away countries. Britain has - historically - been an exporter of people and has not had a huge influx of refugees. The country in Europe which has had the biggest influx has been Germany - at the end of WW2.
Huguenots - about 50,000 (over about 60 years) Russian Jews - about 140,000 (over about 40 years) Central European Jews - about 90,000 (over about 10 years) Ugandan Asians - about 60,000 (over about five years) Poles - about 120,000 (over about 20 years)
Dr. Prasannan, and others, I recall reading recently that Jordan's got quite a lot of refugees and is wary of taking more. There's some concern there could be a serious risk to the country's regime falling, or at least being under threat.
Jordan - population ~8 million has taken ~ 630,000 Syrian refugees.
Since the start of the civil war in Syria, over 7.5 million people have become displaced, of which over 4 million have fled the country. Approximately one third of a million people have been killed.
Before the conflict began the population was roughly 23 million. So roughly one third of the total population have been displaced by the conflict and one fifth of the population have fled and are now refugees.
Most of the refugees have sought sanctuary in neighbouring countries: Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Turkey has accepted over 1.7 million refugees. Lebanon has accepted over 667k refugees (about a seventh of its total population).
This is a huge, huge humanitarian disaster.
I get that there are real and pressing needs to do with immigration (both legal and illegal) and Europe, I really do. But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants.
What we need is a Muslim/Arabic UN where a 'peacekeeping' force, made up of the various Arabic groups could step in and stabilise conflicts. At the moment the World waits for the US to step in and that just inflames the situation.
And the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC - recently renamed Organization of Islamic Cooperation) is you want to expand beyond just the Arab world. http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv2/home/?lan=en
Dr. Prasannan, and others, I recall reading recently that Jordan's got quite a lot of refugees and is wary of taking more. There's some concern there could be a serious risk to the country's regime falling, or at least being under threat.
Jordan - population ~8 million has taken ~ 630,000 Syrian refugees.
Dr. Prasannan, and others, I recall reading recently that Jordan's got quite a lot of refugees and is wary of taking more. There's some concern there could be a serious risk to the country's regime falling, or at least being under threat.
So having a lot of Syrian refugees would destabilise Jordan, would it. And why would that be? And might that impact the desire of other countries to take in those same refugees?
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 8m8 minutes ago German ambassador to UK tells @itvnews that Germany's 'expectation' is Britain must make a contribution to solve migrant crisis. At 6:30pm
I can't work out if this is serious or part of the orchestrated dust-up mentioned by Lansley...
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
It would be worth spelling out how often and in what numbers Britain has taken in refugees. There were the Huguenots, of course, given shelter because they were fellow Protestants. There were Jews fleeing the Tsarist pogroms. The Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. Some Jews in the 1930s though not a huge number; some Czechs and Hungarians after the various uprisings under Communism and the Poles who remained after WW2.
This is off the top of my head. Are there any other significant groups of refugees Britain has taken in?
It seems to me that Cooper may be overstating the case when she says that Britain has historically taken hundreds of thousands of people from far away countries. Britain has - historically - been an exporter of people and has not had a huge influx of refugees. The country in Europe which has had the biggest influx has been Germany - at the end of WW2.
"Both before and after the 1708 passage of the Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act, an estimated 50,000 Protestant Walloons and Huguenots fled to England, with many moving on to Ireland and elsewhere. In relative terms, this was one of the largest waves of immigration ever of a single ethnic community to Britain."[53]
Walloons may have been but the Huguenots were not an ethnic group. They were a religious group and the reason they had to flee France was because they faced religious persecution. A good current example would be Christians in IS-dominated areas of Syria and Iraq.
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 8m8 minutes ago German ambassador to UK tells @itvnews that Germany's 'expectation' is Britain must make a contribution to solve migrant crisis. At 6:30pm
I can't work out if this is serious or part of the orchestrated dust-up mentioned by Lansley...
Looks like they're goading the Great British Public into voting OUT!
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
It would be worth spelling out how often and in what numbers Britain has taken in refugees. There were the Huguenots, of course, given shelter because they were fellow Protestants. There were Jews fleeing the Tsarist pogroms. The Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. Some Jews in the 1930s though not a huge number; some Czechs and Hungarians after the various uprisings under Communism and the Poles who remained after WW2.
This is off the top of my head. Are there any other significant groups of refugees Britain has taken in?
It seems to me that Cooper may be overstating the case when she says that Britain has historically taken hundreds of thousands of people from far away countries. Britain has - historically - been an exporter of people and has not had a huge influx of refugees. The country in Europe which has had the biggest influx has been Germany - at the end of WW2.
"Both before and after the 1708 passage of the Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act, an estimated 50,000 Protestant Walloons and Huguenots fled to England, with many moving on to Ireland and elsewhere. In relative terms, this was one of the largest waves of immigration ever of a single ethnic community to Britain."[53]
Ok so what was the UK population in 1708 about 6 million? It was about 10M in 1801 I think and I recall being told in Charles' II day it was about 5 million (doubtless someone will improve on these for us). But 50K is about 0.83%. That's over a number of years presumably after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in about 1689 (?) so about a generation.
0.83% of 64M today is 533,000 or about 19/20 months net migration at current rates. Even if I'm out by a factor of 4 or 5 it still brings home the scale of what's going on now and why I get increasingly irritated by the likes of Yvette Cooper refusing to answer what her opinion of "enough" is.
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 8m8 minutes ago German ambassador to UK tells @itvnews that Germany's 'expectation' is Britain must make a contribution to solve migrant crisis. At 6:30pm
I can't work out if this is serious or part of the orchestrated dust-up mentioned by Lansley...
Looks like they're goading the Great British Public into voting OUT!
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
It would be worth spelling out how often and in what numbers Britain has taken in refugees. There were the Huguenots, of course, given shelter because they were fellow Protestants. There were Jews fleeing the Tsarist pogroms. The Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. Some Jews in the 1930s though not a huge number; some Czechs and Hungarians after the various uprisings under Communism and the Poles who remained after WW2.
This is off the top of my head. Are there any other significant groups of refugees Britain has taken in?
It seems to me that Cooper may be overstating the case when she says that Britain has historically taken hundreds of thousands of people from far away countries. Britain has - historically - been an exporter of people and has not had a huge influx of refugees. The country in Europe which has had the biggest influx has been Germany - at the end of WW2.
"Both before and after the 1708 passage of the Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act, an estimated 50,000 Protestant Walloons and Huguenots fled to England, with many moving on to Ireland and elsewhere. In relative terms, this was one of the largest waves of immigration ever of a single ethnic community to Britain."[53]
Walloons may have been but the Huguenots were not an ethnic group. They were a religious group and the reason they had to flee France was because they faced religious persecution. A good current example would be Christians in IS-dominated areas of Syria and Iraq.
Fair enough, but Walloons and Huguenots were/are both French-speaking.
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 8m8 minutes ago German ambassador to UK tells @itvnews that Germany's 'expectation' is Britain must make a contribution to solve migrant crisis. At 6:30pm
Don't we contribute more financially than the rest of the EU combined?
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 8m8 minutes ago German ambassador to UK tells @itvnews that Germany's 'expectation' is Britain must make a contribution to solve migrant crisis. At 6:30pm
I can't work out if this is serious or part of the orchestrated dust-up mentioned by Lansley...
Oh is it? Can Britain tell Germany that its "expectation" is that Germany should not tear up the rules and that if it acts unilaterally it must expect others to do likewise.
Germany invited them in. Germany can deal with the consequences. Or it could have asked others' opinions first before tearing up the Dublin Convention. And then lecturing others.
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 8m8 minutes ago German ambassador to UK tells @itvnews that Germany's 'expectation' is Britain must make a contribution to solve migrant crisis. At 6:30pm
I can't work out if this is serious or part of the orchestrated dust-up mentioned by Lansley...
Looks like they're goading the Great British Public into voting OUT!
Topped up on YC - looks the value now for the leadership.
YC ought to be favoured to beat AB head-to-head, but he has a (much?) better chance of defeating Corbyn. They now look a little too close together on Betfair for my money.
Dr. Prasannan, and others, I recall reading recently that Jordan's got quite a lot of refugees and is wary of taking more. There's some concern there could be a serious risk to the country's regime falling, or at least being under threat.
So having a lot of Syrian refugees would destabilise Jordan, would it. And why would that be? And might that impact the desire of other countries to take in those same refugees?
Any country that suddenly takes on board an extra 630,000 people; about 1/12th of the population, would struggle. That would be like the entire population of Glasgow suddenly needing to be housed in London.
Incidentally, in response to the Chris Ship tweet a table was put up on predicted population changes. Over a given period (to 2080, I think) Germany's is projected to fall by 2.9% and ours to rise by over 9%. Those are rather different kettles of monkeys.
''But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants. ''
Trouble is, that is exactly what our authorities do. The evidence is they are completely incapable of distinguishing one type of migrant from another. It is all the same to them.
What you are in effect saying is 'can other British people please put up with a total mixed bag of people to assuage my conscience'.
I think most people would differentiate between refugees and economic migrants (or worse). Those immigrants with credible ID identifying them as from a recognised war zone should make themselves known as soon as they are in the EU and be a priority to be settled if their status checks out. Any immigrant in the EU not putting themselves into this procedure is obviously illegal and should be dealt with as such.
There's a roaring trade in Syrian passports apparently !
I heard that on the radio this morning (BBC though) but I can't believe they can be any good. Surely not good enough to fool anyone responsible.
Roma from Albania, Kosovo, Romania and Bulgaria are probably buying the Syrian passports, whilst economic migrants from various west african states try and purchase various east African passports would be my bet.
Without putting too fine a point on it, I can't believe that any of them can be any good, although I've not seen any pukka passports from anywhere that you mentioned and if the pukka ones are crap ...... I suppose crap still needs copying.
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 8m8 minutes ago German ambassador to UK tells @itvnews that Germany's 'expectation' is Britain must make a contribution to solve migrant crisis. At 6:30pm
I can't work out if this is serious or part of the orchestrated dust-up mentioned by Lansley...
This is why we did not sign Schengen. If the Germans cannot see this then that's their problem frankly. They cannot fling open their doors because they think it's the right thing to do (never mind the effects on Austria, Hungary, Greece, and Italy) and then tell the rest of us to buckle down to their decision.
Dr. Prasannan, and others, I recall reading recently that Jordan's got quite a lot of refugees and is wary of taking more. There's some concern there could be a serious risk to the country's regime falling, or at least being under threat.
Jordan - population ~8 million has taken ~ 630,000 Syrian refugees.
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
Nope. If the Scots leave on Cameron's or Osbornes watch, it will define them.
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
It would be worth spelling out how often and in what numbers Britain has taken in refugees. There were the Huguenots, of course, given shelter because they were fellow Protestants. There were Jews fleeing the Tsarist pogroms. The Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. Some Jews in the 1930s though not a huge number; some Czechs and Hungarians after the various uprisings under Communism and the Poles who remained after WW2.
This is off the top of my head. Are there any other significant groups of refugees Britain has taken in?
It seems to me that Cooper may be overstating the case when she says that Britain has historically taken hundreds of thousands of people from far away countries. Britain has - historically - been an exporter of people and has not had a huge influx of refugees. The country in Europe which has had the biggest influx has been Germany - at the end of WW2.
Huguenots - about 50,000 (over about 60 years) Russian Jews - about 140,000 (over about 40 years) Central European Jews - about 90,000 (over about 10 years) Ugandan Asians - about 60,000 (over about five years) Poles - about 120,000 (over about 20 years)
Jamaicans 150,000 in 2010 (ONS)
Why were the Jamaicans refugees?
Surely that's *by* 2010, not *in*?
Whether "by" or "in", Jamaicans were not refugees, unless there's some awful Caribbean war I've missed.
If those figures and groups above are right, then Cooper is talking through the proverbial in saying what she's saying. Britain does help some limited groups of refugees but the numbers are far more modest and there is usually some link with Britain, though this is not invariable.
It does not mean that we should not provide some help but it is up for debate as to whether that should be help on the ground rather than letting a lot of people come here etc etc. And our reasons for doing so should be hard-headed not based on a lot of sentimental misunderstanding of history and emotional blackmail by other countries.
Dr. Prasannan, and others, I recall reading recently that Jordan's got quite a lot of refugees and is wary of taking more. There's some concern there could be a serious risk to the country's regime falling, or at least being under threat.
So having a lot of Syrian refugees would destabilise Jordan, would it. And why would that be? And might that impact the desire of other countries to take in those same refugees?
Any country that suddenly takes on board an extra 630,000 people; about 1/12th of the population, would struggle. That would be like the entire population of Glasgow suddenly needing to be housed in London.
Well, quite. Perhaps someone in the German Embassy might read your post and tell Merkel this obvious fact.
Since the start of the civil war in Syria, over 7.5 million people have become displaced, of which over 4 million have fled the country. Approximately one third of a million people have been killed.
Before the conflict began the population was roughly 23 million. So roughly one third of the total population have been displaced by the conflict and one fifth of the population have fled and are now refugees.
Most of the refugees have sought sanctuary in neighbouring countries: Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Turkey has accepted over 1.7 million refugees. Lebanon has accepted over 667k refugees (about a seventh of its total population).
This is a huge, huge humanitarian disaster.
I get that there are real and pressing needs to do with immigration (both legal and illegal) and Europe, I really do. But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants.
I have no pity for the Syrians or the Lebanese. They could have had peace with Israel from the 1949 armistice and created a Levant Heaven. Instead their leaders urged war and the destruction of Israel, and the killing of Jews wether Israelis or not.
Few of these displaced people would have been born in 1949.
If their countries had had peace with Israel for 66 years there wouldn't have been any displaced people or other refugees in the first place. Instead this generation would have been reaping the benefits from those years of peace. Your whole premise is false.
Be sensible - you said you had no pity for 'the Syrians'. Can you suggest how guilty the present Syrians (people under a dictatorship) are for the events of 1949?
Your remarks should sensibly have been, 'I have every sympathy for the Syrians or the Lebanese, if their countries had had peace with Israel for 66 years there wouldn't have been any displaced people or other refugees in the first place. Instead this generation would have been reaping the benefits from those years of peace.'
According to the Guardian, Yvette was "saying Britain had to be true to its values and history by taking up to 10,000 people."
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night. I believe K G Murthy asked her about 10K the next month and the month after, and as far as I can recall she did not answer that one.
It would be worth spelling out how often and in what numbers Britain has taken in refugees. There were the Huguenots, of course, given shelter because they were fellow Protestants. There were Jews fleeing the Tsarist pogroms. The Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. Some Jews in the 1930s though not a huge number; some Czechs and Hungarians after the various uprisings under Communism and the Poles who remained after WW2.
This is off the top of my head. Are there any other significant groups of refugees Britain has taken in?
It seems to me that Cooper may be overstating the case when she says that Britain has historically taken hundreds of thousands of people from far away countries. Britain has - historically - been an exporter of people and has not had a huge influx of refugees. The country in Europe which has had the biggest influx has been Germany - at the end of WW2.
Huguenots - about 50,000 (over about 60 years) Russian Jews - about 140,000 (over about 40 years) Central European Jews - about 90,000 (over about 10 years) Ugandan Asians - about 60,000 (over about five years) Poles - about 120,000 (over about 20 years)
Jamaicans 150,000 in 2010 (ONS)
Why were the Jamaicans refugees?
Surely that's *by* 2010, not *in*?
Whether "by" or "in", Jamaicans were not refugees, unless there's some awful Caribbean war I've missed..
Sorry, that was actually in response to Mr Financier!
Looks like George, not Dave, will be the PM who loses the UK.
You keep saying this line about the PM (usually Cameron) "losing" the UK, so I assume that you must like the sound of it. It's just meaningless hyperbole on your part - which saddens me because you are one of my favourite posters on PB.
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
When the Scots dissolve the UK it will be because they no longer wish to be part of the UK. The likelihood is that they will do this within the next decade under the stewardship of a Tory prime minister. It will have very little to do with Labour, who will not have been in power in either London and Edinburgh for over ten years.
Exactly. And there are plenty of Sunni Muslim countries they can go and take refuge in. This is an Arab problem and the Arabs should bloody well take the lead in helping to resolve it.
so from syria, it would be best to just stroll through iraq to get to saudi?
Exactly my thought. For Syrians to get to Saudi or to Iran they would have to cross through not just Iraq but IS controlled Iraq. Not something I think anyone would suggest is a good idea.
This is not to excuse Saudi from their woeful lack of assistance - and indeed their work in fomenting and deepening the Syrian civil war - but the idea that large numbers of Syrians would choose that direction as an escape route seems rather naive.
OT..What a great fella the Guardian contributor Richard Seymour is..see Guido
That really is out of order.
And to think that one time the Guardian used to be a newspaper worth reading - when it had contributors like the late great James Cameron rather than ghastly people like Seamus Milne.
Comments
*Forgive the sweeping generalisation of the turbulent modern history of the Indian sub-continent.
Maybe, but 'most people' doesn't include those who actually make the decisions. In my view we don;t have a immigration criteria, they simply doesn't exist. Whether you get in or not, and stay or not, appears to be utterly arbitrary.
She also said that in a month, they could take 10,000 by sharing them out.
Now "up to" includes zero, so no one can complain about that. And the second bit assumes a total of up to 10,000 only. Where has she said 120,000 a year? Remember she's a politician.
Why hasn't she taken the lead and offered to house asylum seekers in one of them?
Given the Conservatives got over half the vote in May, the local Tories4Corbyn must really be getting into the swing of it....
Seriously, has anybody seen any window posters declaring their love for any of the other candidates? Even in their own houses?
Blue whale spotted in English waters for first time ever by stunned scientist
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/blue-whale-spotted-english-waters-6368501 …
Yet Blue whales habitat in summer is in cold and icy waters. Man Made Global Warming my arse: Mr Blue Whale says, No!
Edited extra bit: I do wonder what we'll talk about if Corbyn's elected. Presumably we'll have some more quotes to enjoy.
Just noticed this from Indigo
"I told you this yesterday, and Mr Tyndall has told you this several times and yet you still are not listening."
Sorry Indigo but I have never said that EEA membership meant anything different to the EU as far as immigration is concerned.
I slant towards the idea of EEA membership after Brexit as it provides a clear indication of what to expect as far as business is concerned after we leave the EU but it will depend how things develop with mass migration as to whether I consider this a price worth paying for the slightly easier access to markets.
To be honest with the way things are going I don't think it will be the UK that breaks freedom of movement whether we are inside or out.
Do you have a favoured sock
"She dodged that very question when posed by C4 News last night."
Why do the interviewers allow them to get away with waffling? Jezza would cut up rough if confronted but Yvette is hardly likely to lean over and nut him.
This is off the top of my head. Are there any other significant groups of refugees Britain has taken in?
It seems to me that Cooper may be overstating the case when she says that Britain has historically taken hundreds of thousands of people from far away countries. Britain has - historically - been an exporter of people and has not had a huge influx of refugees. The country in Europe which has had the biggest influx has been Germany - at the end of WW2.
There have also been tens of thousands fleeing TO Damascus into Assad's evil clutches, how is that to be explained?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan
We're always hearing about the global ummah, about how Muslims in one country are affected by what happens to Muslims elsewhere (usually as an explanation for why some youth has decided to blow people up - but never mind). Well now's the chance for that global ummah to do something for its fellow Muslims.
If the Saudis can pay for imams to preach God knows what all over the world, they can pay to house suffering Syrians in some style, frankly. Rather than fund terror groups which make the problem worse, perhaps they might fund some charitable relief.
The whole of the Gulf is accessible from the Jordanian port of Aqaba.
These journeys are much easier than, say, travelling to Northern Europe.
Russian Jews - about 140,000 (over about 40 years)
Central European Jews - about 90,000 (over about 10 years)
Ugandan Asians - about 60,000 (over about five years)
Poles - about 120,000 (over about 20 years)
The fact is that whether Scotland leaves the UK or not is entirely down to the decision to be taken by the Scottish people. There is a lot more to it than who occupies the office of PM at Westminster.
If the Scots do leave the UK then it will have more to do with the unholy mess of devolution that Labour have made, and the fact that the Scots have now realised that the Labour party don't represent them any more effectively than the Tories did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenot
In fact, if the figures of migrants in the Lebanon and Jordan are right, then there is a real risk that these countries too will become destabilised and still more of the Arab World will become a devastated war zone.
It is in the Saudi’s (& Qatari’s & Kuwaiti’s) own interests to act.
German ambassador to UK tells @itvnews that Germany's 'expectation' is Britain must make a contribution to solve migrant crisis. At 6:30pm
I can't work out if this is serious or part of the orchestrated dust-up mentioned by Lansley...
Miss Cyclefree, as well as resources, there's a fear, I think, of infiltration by ISIS.
Edited extra bit: Dr. Prasannan, I still think much more is needed for Out to have a realistic prospect of success.
0.83% of 64M today is 533,000 or about 19/20 months net migration at current rates. Even if I'm out by a factor of 4 or 5 it still brings home the scale of what's going on now and why I get increasingly irritated by the likes of Yvette Cooper refusing to answer what her opinion of "enough" is.
Germany invited them in. Germany can deal with the consequences. Or it could have asked others' opinions first before tearing up the Dublin Convention. And then lecturing others.
Incidentally, in response to the Chris Ship tweet a table was put up on predicted population changes. Over a given period (to 2080, I think) Germany's is projected to fall by 2.9% and ours to rise by over 9%. Those are rather different kettles of monkeys.
Christ I'm moving towards "leave" by the day.....
If those figures and groups above are right, then Cooper is talking through the proverbial in saying what she's saying. Britain does help some limited groups of refugees but the numbers are far more modest and there is usually some link with Britain, though this is not invariable.
It does not mean that we should not provide some help but it is up for debate as to whether that should be help on the ground rather than letting a lot of people come here etc etc. And our reasons for doing so should be hard-headed not based on a lot of sentimental misunderstanding of history and emotional blackmail by other countries.
He's a Guardian writer?!
http://order-order.com/2015/09/02/guardian-writers-vile-slur-against-falklands-hero/
Your remarks should sensibly have been, 'I have every sympathy for the Syrians or the Lebanese, if their countries had had peace with Israel for 66 years there wouldn't have been any displaced people or other refugees in the first place. Instead this generation would have been reaping the benefits from those years of peace.'
Oh, Jamaica - must be all those Yardie Gangs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yardie
This is not to excuse Saudi from their woeful lack of assistance - and indeed their work in fomenting and deepening the Syrian civil war - but the idea that large numbers of Syrians would choose that direction as an escape route seems rather naive.
And to think that one time the Guardian used to be a newspaper worth reading - when it had contributors like the late great James Cameron rather than ghastly people like Seamus Milne.
Owen Jones makes a personal appearance on that thread too.