If they are genuine refugees, they would surely be happy to reach the nearest safe country and stay there?
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
Merkel invited them in, and Merkel has decided that everyone should carry the cost. It seems that we give nigh on twice as much aid as the rest of the EU put together, we are not in Schengen and I don't see why anyone should do what Merkel says just because Merkel says it. I mentioned in the last thread that Germany has as many Balkan immigrants as Syrian and will kick them out to make room for more Syrians - this from a German politician on the radio this morning.
Hasn't Merkel invited refugees to Germany, rather than the whole of Europe? And well this refugee crisis has to be sorted somehow: it can't just simply be ignored. So I agree with Merkel on there being an EU-wide solution, as the refugee crisis is affecting all of Europe.
One German politician says one thing so it'll happen? Really? I doubt Germany will kick out their Balkan immigrants, not in the least because Germany needs immigrants because of their low birth rate.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
Germany = EU, even for us. The illegals in Budapest all chant "Germany, Germany" in English mind and the BBC vox pop has no trouble finding people to say "let us in, we're human beings".
As far as the Balkan economic immigrants are concerned, that's my point. Incidentally it seems from reporting of the subject, that the immigrants are overwhelmingly male - if the Germans are interested in breeding (and some Germans have taken a less than healthy stance on it in the past) then they would be best advised to reverse the existing man/ woman ratio. The birthrate amongst Germans is low - probably something to do with age, so you couldn't use local woman to breed from.
I grant you that our Arab Spring policies have been a disaster but these immigrants come from all over. Refugees are different and I suspect a large proportion of the immigrants converging on the EU are not refugees.
So have I, and as always, hope was beaten by experience. They only have an hour, but going for the bright four-year-old market never really works. There's another programme next week but if it's as juvenile, I might give it a miss. Time really is fascinating
It's all fascinating but not a game of lego. I can play theories too. I explained to my four-year old grandson in Sydney (by Skype) that Australians walk on the heads (he's aware of the globe). He looked puzzled but at the next Skype session he countered.
"I don't think you're a proper scientist, Grandad, we don't walk around upside down." "Let's look at the evidence," I said. "Why do Australians have red faces?" "I don't know." "It's because all the blood rushes to their heads."
That should keep him thinking until he learns a bit more.
Another Australian child scarred for life.
Sad to see your predictions the other day were borne out in the actual programme, Mr. 13. It was a fun discussion, though.
P.S. There are more than one infinities and some are bigger than others.
If they are genuine refugees, they would surely be happy to reach the nearest safe country and stay there?
Most likely. But I think the idea of every country making a contribution is due to the fact that one country alone is not going to be able to take all those migrants. Especially those with their own economic problems, such as Serbia.
Merkel invited them in, and Merkel has decided that everyone should carry the cost. It seems that we give nigh on twice as much aid as the rest of the EU put together, we are not in Schengen and I don't see why anyone should do what Merkel says just because Merkel says it. I mentioned in the last thread that Germany has as many Balkan immigrants as Syrian and will kick them out to make room for more Syrians - this from a German politician on the radio this morning.
Hasn't Merkel invited refugees to Germany, rather than the whole of Europe? And well this refugee crisis has to be sorted somehow: it can't just simply be ignored. So I agree with Merkel on there being an EU-wide solution, as the refugee crisis is affecting all of Europe.
One German politician says one thing so it'll happen? Really? I doubt Germany will kick out their Balkan immigrants, not in the least because Germany needs immigrants because of their low birth rate.
And while we may not be in Schengen, we and the US both decided to meddle in Middle Eastern Affairs in the last decade or so. We are hardly blameless for the crisis going on there.
Germany = EU, even for us. The illegals in Budapest all chant "Germany, Germany" in English mind and the BBC vox pop has no trouble finding people to say "let us in, we're human beings".
As far as the Balkan economic immigrants are concerned, that's my point. Incidentally it seems from reporting of the subject, that the immigrants are overwhelmingly male - if the Germans are interested in breeding (and some Germans have taken a less than healthy stance on it in the past) then they would be best advised to reverse the existing man/ woman ratio. The birthrate amongst Germans is low - probably something to do with age, so you couldn't use local woman to breed from.
I grant you that our Arab Spring policies have been a disaster but these immigrants come from all over. Refugees are different and I suspect a large proportion of the immigrants converging on the EU are not refugees.
No-one up here needs a word. All it would need is for Cameron to apologise for the looting of Scotland by the British Government and to stop lying about being able to stop Scotland using Sterling.
You could send him an email, get some chums to join in.
I like you, you're funny.
Many of the claims he is making seem completely incorrect to me, but I've stopped caring about Scotland enough to bother arguing.
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
"Most successful project ever, hugely profitable
Dair"
The idea behind the Darien Scheme was a very smart one. Indeed so smart that it is one of the major backbones of World Trade even today (and in the process of a massive expansion).
The execution was quite woeful, naive and stupid.
betting the nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp was smart ?
The English did it better: we swapped Surinam with the Dutch. They gave us Manhattan in return.
Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, IS - they all come from the same rotten source. The way we have pointlessly interfered in various Middle Eastern countries has certainly not helped. We've behaved like incompetent gardeners pouring tomato feed all over weeds. But the seeds were there before we turned up. It is gross European egocentricity to suppose that we are responsible for these ideologies.
All we can do is provide as much glysophate as we can lay our hands on and put down impermeable barriers and hope that they don't spread to neighbouring gardens. Digging everything up and putting down black sheeting covered by carpet is probably too difficult for us to do - and if IS are the Japanese knotweed of the Jihadist World, then more extreme measures will be needed.
I don't quite understand the mindset of deselecting MPs simply because they aren't identikit ones that you approve of.
MPs have to appeal to their electorate. Stephen Lloyd the former LD MP for Eastbourne was described to me by his own supporters as the most Tory LD we could find to represent the seat.
Germany = EU, even for us. The illegals in Budapest all chant "Germany, Germany" in English mind and the BBC vox pop has no trouble finding people to say "let us in, we're human beings".
As far as the Balkan economic immigrants are concerned, that's my point. Incidentally it seems from reporting of the subject, that the immigrants are overwhelmingly male - if the Germans are interested in breeding (and some Germans have taken a less than healthy stance on it in the past) then they would be best advised to reverse the existing man/ woman ratio. The birthrate amongst Germans is low - probably something to do with age, so you couldn't use local woman to breed from.
I grant you that our Arab Spring policies have been a disaster but these immigrants come from all over. Refugees are different and I suspect a large proportion of the immigrants converging on the EU are not refugees.
Economic migrants tend to be male, but many of those coming from Syria as refugees will be families. Germany's low birth rate is partly apparently down to Germans traditionally having small families. On your last point, that's what I mean - refugees. Economic migrants are a different thing.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
Why can't Hungary, Turkey, or Germany sort this themselves?
Should we blame Obama as well?
Maybe?
Honestly, we could do more, we surely could (whether we should, or to what extent, is a fierce debate), but there's certainly no way Cameron can 'deal with it' as requested.
Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, IS - they all come from the same rotten source. The way we have pointlessly interfered in various Middle Eastern countries has certainly not helped. We've behaved like incompetent gardeners pouring tomato feed all over weeds. But the seeds were there before we turned up. It is gross European egocentricity to suppose that we are responsible for these ideologies.
All we can do is provide as much glysophate as we can lay our hands on and put down impermeable barriers and hope that they don't spread to neighbouring gardens. Digging everything up and putting down black sheeting covered by carpet is probably too difficult for us to do - and if IS are the Japanese knotweed of the Jihadist World, then more extreme measures will be needed.
I get the message, but the Sun seems to have overlooked events like the Prague Spring, Hungarian revolution, and maybe the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, which certainly had the potential to run out of control and kick off wider conflicts.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Any chance you could bring it forward by a couple of years? I'd rather it happened before the idiot Osborne spends too much money upgrading Faslane and whilst the bulk of the money can be spent on Devonport.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
I think spending in Faslane is scheduled to start (very slowly) in 2017 which is probably too near the next GE so it will be delayed. There you go George, job done.
Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, IS - they all come from the same rotten source. The way we have pointlessly interfered in various Middle Eastern countries has certainly not helped. We've behaved like incompetent gardeners pouring tomato feed all over weeds. But the seeds were there before we turned up. It is gross European egocentricity to suppose that we are responsible for these ideologies.
All we can do is provide as much glysophate as we can lay our hands on and put down impermeable barriers and hope that they don't spread to neighbouring gardens. Digging everything up and putting down black sheeting covered by carpet is probably too difficult for us to do - and if IS are the Japanese knotweed of the Jihadist World, then more extreme measures will be needed.
When the bombing of ISIS kicked off much play was made of the Arab countries that had joined in and actually committed aircraft to the effort. There was also the ghastly case of the Jordanian pilot who was most brutally murdered after being shot down.
In recent months, since indeed the case of the Jordanian pilot, I don't think I have seen anything about any Arab nation air force doing anything in the campaign. I wonder if they are still involved.
Mind you information on what the Sceptics and our own RAF are doing is pretty thin on the ground. The air war seems to have become a lost campaign - it is going on, it is costing millions but nobody is saying if it is doing any good or anything at all.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
Has that bit of Panama where the Scots enacted their Darien Scheme been spoken for yet. They might like to have another go at it.
"Most successful project ever, hugely profitable
Dair"
The idea behind the Darien Scheme was a very smart one. Indeed so smart that it is one of the major backbones of World Trade even today (and in the process of a massive expansion).
The execution was quite woeful, naive and stupid.
betting the nation's wealth on living in a malarial swamp was smart ?
Be fair. Nearly everything else was okay
Apart from the boats. And the Spaniards. And the Indians. And the leaders. And the embezzlement. And the site chosen.......
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Wrong. Actually the SNP is about to have a huge internal row about whether to hold indyref2 and most of the polls since the election but today's have shown No ahead. Indeed Yes actually led in 1 poll a fortnight before indyref and lost by 10 points. Despite what nats say there is nothing inevitable about independence as Quebec proves
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Any chance you could bring it forward by a couple of years? I'd rather it happened before the idiot Osborne spends too much money upgrading Faslane and whilst the bulk of the money can be spent on Devonport.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
I think spending in Faslane is scheduled to start (very slowly) in 2017 which is probably too near the next GE so it will be delayed. There you go George, job done.
Thanks for that Mr, Cide, I am reassured. Mind you, it just goes to show that Osborne's announcement the other day was no more than a political stunt.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Any chance you could bring it forward by a couple of years? I'd rather it happened before the idiot Osborne spends too much money upgrading Faslane and whilst the bulk of the money can be spent on Devonport.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
No-one up here needs a word. All it would need is for Cameron to apologise for the looting of Scotland by the British Government and to stop lying about being able to stop Scotland using Sterling.
You could send him an email, get some chums to join in.
There, there. The tinnies are really starting to tell. I can't promise he'll go away but I still think it might be best to ignore him.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
Yes, and my point was that had we not invaded Iraq, the likes of ISIS probably wouldn't have come about and flourished in Syria. Didn't we also get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring, incidentally?
The problem with counterfactuals is that we always assume that things would be rosy if we had not intervened. In Iraq, the alternative to invasion was not a continuation of the status quo ante, but what would Saddam have got up to with sanctions withered away, oil revenues resurgent and a free hand to resume his bullying adventurism with better WMD?
And we did not get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring - some argue that things would have been a lot different for the better had we given stronger support and arms to the 'lay' Sunni opposition. I am not sure about that, but we certainly can't lay the Syrian situation on over-engagement by the US or the West.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
Whilst I don't doubt it is true I don't quite grasp the maths behind the class sizes: from 2006 to 2014 we've gone from 36.6% of pupils being in class sizes over 25 to 26.7% of pupils being in class sizes over 25 yet the average calss size has remained basically flat at 23.2 to 23.3.
Is someone able to give me some illustrative numbers to explain how that happens?
PRE-EDIT: I suppose if all the pupils in 19 student classes are now in, say 24 student classes then that would be a decent way of doing it. It's just weird bucketing of the data isn't it?
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
Yes, and my point was that had we not invaded Iraq, the likes of ISIS probably wouldn't have come about and flourished in Syria. Didn't we also get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring, incidentally?
The problem with counterfactuals is that we always assume that things would be rosy if we had not intervened. In Iraq, the alternative to invasion was not a continuation of the status quo ante, but what would Saddam have got up to with sanctions withered away, oil revenues resurgent and a free hand to resume his bullying adventurism with better WMD?
And we did not get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring - some argue that things would have been a lot different for the better had we given stronger support and arms to the 'lay' Sunni opposition. I am not sure about that, but we certainly can't lay the Syrian situation on over-engagement by the US or the West.
OT I'm just catching up with Ross Kemp's Extreme World - golly it's brilliant and horrible and brutal at the same time. If you get a chance to see it = well worth it. He's perfect as a cipher to talk with macho shit heads.
And Mob Wives - Chicago is just as good as the original. They are from another planet and scary birds
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
Yes, and my point was that had we not invaded Iraq, the likes of ISIS probably wouldn't have come about and flourished in Syria. Didn't we also get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring, incidentally?
The problem with counterfactuals is that we always assume that things would be rosy if we had not intervened. In Iraq, the alternative to invasion was not a continuation of the status quo ante, but what would Saddam have got up to with sanctions withered away, oil revenues resurgent and a free hand to resume his bullying adventurism with better WMD?
And we did not get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring - some argue that things would have been a lot different for the better had we given stronger support and arms to the 'lay' Sunni opposition. I am not sure about that, but we certainly can't lay the Syrian situation on over-engagement by the US or the West.
So...
Iraq is bad - because we intervened.
Syria is bad - because we didn't intervene.
Either way, it's our fault.
Iraq is bad because we didn't finish the job (or had planned to properly finish the job)
Syria is bad is because we haven't started to sort out the mess
Whilst I don't doubt it is true I don't quite grasp the maths behind the class sizes: from 2006 to 2014 we've gone from 36.6% of pupils being in class sizes over 25 to 26.7% of pupils being in class sizes over 25 yet the average calss size has remained basically flat at 23.2 to 23.3.
Is someone able to give me some illustrative numbers to explain how that happens?
PRE-EDIT: I suppose if all the pupils in 19 student classes are now in, say 24 student classes then that would be a decent way of doing it. It's just weird bucketing of the data isn't it?
That's basically it, they must have reduced the variance, and it probably means that there are now fewer classes with say 20 or less pupils, so some pupils will be marginally worse off.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
Britain (us) pressure (other countries).
And why should we give in to "other countries"? They signed their stupid Schengen. This is one of the consequences. We didn't, precisely to preserve our freedom of action in these and other circumstances.
Germany = EU, even for us. The illegals in Budapest all chant "Germany, Germany" in English mind and the BBC vox pop has no trouble finding people to say "let us in, we're human beings".
As far as the Balkan economic immigrants are concerned, that's my point. Incidentally it seems from reporting of the subject, that the immigrants are overwhelmingly male - if the Germans are interested in breeding (and some Germans have taken a less than healthy stance on it in the past) then they would be best advised to reverse the existing man/ woman ratio. The birthrate amongst Germans is low - probably something to do with age, so you couldn't use local woman to breed from.
I grant you that our Arab Spring policies have been a disaster but these immigrants come from all over. Refugees are different and I suspect a large proportion of the immigrants converging on the EU are not refugees.
Economic migrants tend to be male, but many of those coming from Syria as refugees will be families. Germany's low birth rate is partly apparently down to Germans traditionally having small families. On your last point, that's what I mean - refugees. Economic migrants are a different thing.
You keep adding 2 and 2 together without making it 4.
Whilst I don't doubt it is true I don't quite grasp the maths behind the class sizes: from 2006 to 2014 we've gone from 36.6% of pupils being in class sizes over 25 to 26.7% of pupils being in class sizes over 25 yet the average calss size has remained basically flat at 23.2 to 23.3.
Is someone able to give me some illustrative numbers to explain how that happens?
PRE-EDIT: I suppose if all the pupils in 19 student classes are now in, say 24 student classes then that would be a decent way of doing it. It's just weird bucketing of the data isn't it?
It's called levelling down. Inevitable consequence (sorry @alanbrooke) of leftie policies and priorities.
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
Yes, and my point was that had we not invaded Iraq, the likes of ISIS probably wouldn't have come about and flourished in Syria. Didn't we also get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring, incidentally?
The problem with counterfactuals is that we always assume that things would be rosy if we had not intervened. In Iraq, the alternative to invasion was not a continuation of the status quo ante, but what would Saddam have got up to with sanctions withered away, oil revenues resurgent and a free hand to resume his bullying adventurism with better WMD?
And we did not get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring - some argue that things would have been a lot different for the better had we given stronger support and arms to the 'lay' Sunni opposition. I am not sure about that, but we certainly can't lay the Syrian situation on over-engagement by the US or the West.
I think we did get involved in Syria - we helped armed rebels, and Cameron wanted to (although he lost the motion) implement military intervention in Syria (I'm referring to the UK, btw).
I don't think things would have been rosy, but I don't think there would be a migration crisis. I also though they'd established that Iraq didn't have a WMD.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
leftie white guilt
One has to wonder, Mr. Pauly. The Syrian mess has been going on for years and there has not been anything lately that I am aware of that suddenly caused a massive exodus from that country. So how is it that suddenly Syrian refugees are the big news story and an urgent problem that we must resolve?
Yes, there has been a massive influx of people trying to get into Europe this year and yes there is a massive problem. But a why the sudden attention on Syrian refugees, a very large proportion of whom seem to have fled the homeland long ago?
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
Britain (us) pressure (other countries).
And why should we give in to "other countries"? They signed their stupid Schengen. This is one of the consequences. We didn't, precisely to preserve our freedom of action in these and other circumstances.
Because, as I've said before we hardly blameless in this crisis. We, after all meddled in the Middle East.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
leftie white guilt
Yes, I definitely think The Sun is a source of leftie white guilt.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
leftie white guilt
One has to wonder, Mr. Pauly. The Syrian mess has been going on for years and there has not been anything lately that I am aware of that suddenly caused a massive exodus from that country. So how is it that suddenly Syrian refugees are the big news story and an urgent problem that we must resolve?
Yes, there has been a massive influx of people trying to get into Europe this year and yes there is a massive problem. But a why the sudden attention on Syrian refugees, a very large proportion of whom seem to have fled the homeland long ago?
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Any chance you could bring it forward by a couple of years? I'd rather it happened before the idiot Osborne spends too much money upgrading Faslane and whilst the bulk of the money can be spent on Devonport.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
I think spending in Faslane is scheduled to start (very slowly) in 2017 which is probably too near the next GE so it will be delayed. There you go George, job done.
Thanks for that Mr, Cide, I am reassured. Mind you, it just goes to show that Osborne's announcement the other day was no more than a political stunt.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
leftie white guilt
Yes, I definitely think The Sun is a source of leftie white guilt.
I was saying you were the source, but whatever you say...
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
leftie white guilt
Yes, I definitely think The Sun is a source of leftie white guilt.
I was saying you were the source, but whatever you say...
Labour Party sources have revealed that less than half of the 553,954 eligible to vote in the contest have returned their ballot forms, so far, and members are swinging away from the Corbyn bandwagon after a barrage of damaging revelations about the frontrunner.
Labour Party sources have revealed that less than half of the 553,954 eligible to vote in the contest have returned their ballot forms, so far, and members are swinging away from the Corbyn bandwagon after a barrage of damaging revelations about the frontrunner.
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
Yes, and my point was that had we not invaded Iraq, the likes of ISIS probably wouldn't have come about and flourished in Syria. Didn't we also get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring, incidentally?
The problem with counterfactuals is that we always assume that things would be rosy if we had not intervened. In Iraq, the alternative to invasion was not a continuation of the status quo ante, but what would Saddam have got up to with sanctions withered away, oil revenues resurgent and a free hand to resume his bullying adventurism with better WMD?
And we did not get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring - some argue that things would have been a lot different for the better had we given stronger support and arms to the 'lay' Sunni opposition. I am not sure about that, but we certainly can't lay the Syrian situation on over-engagement by the US or the West.
I think we did get involved in Syria - we helped armed rebels, and Cameron wanted to (although he lost the motion) implement military intervention in Syria (I'm referring to the UK, btw).
I don't think things would have been rosy, but I don't think there would be a migration crisis. I also though they'd established that Iraq didn't have a WMD.
No, the UK did not arm the rebels and as you have noted we did not get involved in any military action. Your idea that somehow this crisis is somehow down to the UK is complete bollocks.
Where we did go wrong as I argued on here the other day, and was roundly shouted at for doing so, is we gave words of encouragement for the Arab Spring. That as far as Syria is concerned is surely the limit of our culpability.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
leftie white guilt
Yes, I definitely think The Sun is a source of leftie white guilt.
I was saying you were the source, but whatever you say...
Labour Party sources have revealed that less than half of the 553,954 eligible to vote in the contest have returned their ballot forms, so far, and members are swinging away from the Corbyn bandwagon after a barrage of damaging revelations about the frontrunner.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Any chance you could bring it forward by a couple of years? I'd rather it happened before the idiot Osborne spends too much money upgrading Faslane and whilst the bulk of the money can be spent on Devonport.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
No-one up here needs a word. All it would need is for Cameron to apologise for the looting of Scotland by the British Government and to stop lying about being able to stop Scotland using Sterling.
You could send him an email, get some chums to join in.
If you lose a second referendum, I might just die of laughter.
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
Yes, and my point was that had we not invaded Iraq, the likes of ISIS probably wouldn't have come about and flourished in Syria. Didn't we also get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring, incidentally?
The problem with counterfactuals is that we always assume that things would be rosy if we had not intervened. In Iraq, the alternative to invasion was not a continuation of the status quo ante, but what would Saddam have got up to with sanctions withered away, oil revenues resurgent and a free hand to resume his bullying adventurism with better WMD?
And we did not get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring - some argue that things would have been a lot different for the better had we given stronger support and arms to the 'lay' Sunni opposition. I am not sure about that, but we certainly can't lay the Syrian situation on over-engagement by the US or the West.
I think we did get involved in Syria - we helped armed rebels, and Cameron wanted to (although he lost the motion) implement military intervention in Syria (I'm referring to the UK, btw).
I don't think things would have been rosy, but I don't think there would be a migration crisis. I also though they'd established that Iraq didn't have a WMD.
Syria was already in the midst of civil war before we got involved. The country had collapsed by 2010, and we started providing arms in 2012.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
Britain (us) pressure (other countries).
And why should we give in to "other countries"? They signed their stupid Schengen. This is one of the consequences. We didn't, precisely to preserve our freedom of action in these and other circumstances.
Because, as I've said before we hardly blameless in this crisis. We, after all meddled in the Middle East.
Nope don't buy that I'm afraid. We've not intervened in Syria in a meaningful way. It's not my fault if Merkel takes leave of her senses and welcomes all and sundry and bugger the consequences for her neighbours when tens of thousands take her up on her offer and start heading across Europe en masse. Not my fault there are no border controls because idiotic European leaders got ahead of themselves in the early 90's.
( For the record I thought the second Iraq war was a nuts idea too).
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
Britain (us) pressure (other countries).
And why should we give in to "other countries"? They signed their stupid Schengen. This is one of the consequences. We didn't, precisely to preserve our freedom of action in these and other circumstances.
Cameron made a no ifs, no buts promise.
IF Cameron lets in 10,000 migrants that will not make a dent in the hundreds of thousands arriving in Europe. No doubt shortly after taking 10,000 there will be calls for another 10,000 and another.
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
Yes, and my point was that had we not invaded Iraq, the likes of ISIS probably wouldn't have come about and flourished in Syria. Didn't we also get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring, incidentally?
The problem with counterfactuals is that we always assume that things would be rosy if we had not intervened. In Iraq, the alternative to invasion was not a continuation of the status quo ante, but what would Saddam have got up to with sanctions withered away, oil revenues resurgent and a free hand to resume his bullying adventurism with better WMD?
And we did not get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring - some argue that things would have been a lot different for the better had we given stronger support and arms to the 'lay' Sunni opposition. I am not sure about that, but we certainly can't lay the Syrian situation on over-engagement by the US or the West.
I think we did get involved in Syria - we helped armed rebels, and Cameron wanted to (although he lost the motion) implement military intervention in Syria (I'm referring to the UK, btw).
I don't think things would have been rosy, but I don't think there would be a migration crisis. I also though they'd established that Iraq didn't have a WMD.
No, the UK did not arm the rebels and as you have noted we did not get involved in any military action. Your idea that somehow this crisis is somehow down to the UK is complete bollocks.
Where we did go wrong as I argued on here the other day, and was roundly shouted at for doing so, is we gave words of encouragement for the Arab Spring. That as far as Syria is concerned is surely the limit of our culpability.
I never said that the entire crisis was down to the UK, merely that we weren't blameless and had contributed to the de-stablising of the Middle East, and therefore this crisis.
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
Yes, and my point was that had we not invaded Iraq, the likes of ISIS probably wouldn't have come about and flourished in Syria. Didn't we also get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring, incidentally?
The problem with counterfactuals is that we always assume that things would be rosy if we had not intervened. In Iraq, the alternative to invasion was not a continuation of the status quo ante, but what would Saddam have got up to with sanctions withered away, oil revenues resurgent and a free hand to resume his bullying adventurism with better WMD?
And we did not get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring - some argue that things would have been a lot different for the better had we given stronger support and arms to the 'lay' Sunni opposition. I am not sure about that, but we certainly can't lay the Syrian situation on over-engagement by the US or the West.
I think we did get involved in Syria - we helped armed rebels, and Cameron wanted to (although he lost the motion) implement military intervention in Syria (I'm referring to the UK, btw).
I don't think things would have been rosy, but I don't think there would be a migration crisis. I also though they'd established that Iraq didn't have a WMD.
Syria was already in the midst of civil war before we got involved. The country had collapsed by 2010, and we started providing arms in 2012.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Any chance you could bring it forward by a couple of years? I'd rather it happened before the idiot Osborne spends too much money upgrading Faslane and whilst the bulk of the money can be spent on Devonport.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
No-one up here needs a word. All it would need is for Cameron to apologise for the looting of Scotland by the British Government and to stop lying about being able to stop Scotland using Sterling.
You could send him an email, get some chums to join in.
If you lose a second referendum, I might just die of laughter.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
Britain (us) pressure (other countries).
And why should we give in to "other countries"? They signed their stupid Schengen. This is one of the consequences. We didn't, precisely to preserve our freedom of action in these and other circumstances.
Because, as I've said before we hardly blameless in this crisis. We, after all meddled in the Middle East.
Nope don't buy that I'm afraid. We've not intervened in Syria in a meaningful way. It's not my fault if Merkel takes leave of her senses and welcomes all and sundry and bugger the consequences for her neighbours when tens of thousands take her up on her offer and start heading across Europe en masse. Not my fault there are no border controls because idiotic European leaders got ahead of themselves in the early 90's.
( For the record I thought the second Iraq war was a nuts idea too).
Well, you may not buy it but it doesn't change the fact we've helped destablise the Middle East. I also don't agree with your assessment of Merkel. At the very least she is showing some leadership and doing something, which is more than can be said for Cameron who appears to be putting his head in the sand.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
leftie white guilt
Yes, I definitely think The Sun is a source of leftie white guilt.
I was saying you were the source, but whatever you say...
The problem with counterfactuals is that we always assume that things would be rosy if we had not intervened. In Iraq, the alternative to invasion was not a continuation of the status quo ante, but what would Saddam have got up to with sanctions withered away, oil revenues resurgent and a free hand to resume his bullying adventurism with better WMD?
Tim, I seem to recall you were considering writing a book about the decision to go to war in Iraq, on top of (as a sequel to?) your previous one about the search for WMD. I might be getting muddled up but pretty sure you discussed with Nick P the prospect of an interview to highlight what MPs knew when they went to the vote. Have you made any headway on it? Are you awaiting Chilcott with interest?
(I've always found your nuanced and informed viewpoint on the matter very helpful and a counterbalance to the more knee-jerk, hindsight-ridden perspectives in the media. I'd have been a willing customer for a good book on what was one of the most profound policy decisions of the 2000s.)
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
Yes, and my point was that had we not invaded Iraq, the likes of ISIS probably wouldn't have come about and flourished in Syria. Didn't we also get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring, incidentally?
The problem with counterfactuals is that we always assume that things would be rosy if we had not intervened. In Iraq, the alternative to invasion was not a continuation of the status quo ante, but what would Saddam have got up to with sanctions withered away, oil revenues resurgent and a free hand to resume his bullying adventurism with better WMD?
And we did not get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring - some argue that things would have been a lot different for the better had we given stronger support and arms to the 'lay' Sunni opposition. I am not sure about that, but we certainly can't lay the Syrian situation on over-engagement by the US or the West.
I think we did get involved in Syria - we helped armed rebels, and Cameron wanted to (although he lost the motion) implement military intervention in Syria (I'm referring to the UK, btw).
I don't think things would have been rosy, but I don't think there would be a migration crisis. I also though they'd established that Iraq didn't have a WMD.
Syria was already in the midst of civil war before we got involved. The country had collapsed by 2010, and we started providing arms in 2012.
And they are flourishing in Syria which we haven't invaded. Was invading Iraq a mistake? Yes, certainly the way it was done. But then we should have finished Saddam off the first time around. The point is, you can't keep going back to a moment time and assuming that everything bad stems from then, not least because the current politicians (and public) didn't take the decision. I don't like the phrase but we are where we are.
Yes, and my point was that had we not invaded Iraq, the likes of ISIS probably wouldn't have come about and flourished in Syria. Didn't we also get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring, incidentally?
And we did not get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring - some argue that things would have been a lot different for the better had we given stronger support and arms to the 'lay' Sunni opposition. I am not sure about that, but we certainly can't lay the Syrian situation on over-engagement by the US or the West.
I think we did get involved in Syria - we helped armed rebels, and Cameron wanted to (although he lost the motion) implement military intervention in Syria (I'm referring to the UK, btw).
I don't think things would have been rosy, but I don't think there would be a migration crisis. I also though they'd established that Iraq didn't have a WMD.
Syria was already in the midst of civil war before we got involved. The country had collapsed by 2010, and we started providing arms in 2012.
I don't deny that. But we did get involved.
Not to any significant degree, as they lament (or celebrate, as the case may be). And it's not like we're doing nothing to help either - that doesn't mean we have to back up Merkel's wishes, or even if that is a good idea or not. At what level of accepting refugees will out culpability be matched, given we are doing something already (whether that is enough is a part of this debate, certainly)?
'We must do something' does not mean 'this is something, therefore we must do it' - I'm persuadable, but I'm not convinced thus far that our limited involvement in this crisis, coupled with the fact we are assisting in other ways, in some cases a great deal more than others in Europe apparently, means we are morally obliged to participate in a plan which may not even be of any help, or could be handled in a better way.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
Britain (us) pressure (other countries).
And why should we give in to "other countries"? They signed their stupid Schengen. This is one of the consequences. We didn't, precisely to preserve our freedom of action in these and other circumstances.
Because, as I've said before we hardly blameless in this crisis. We, after all meddled in the Middle East.
Nope don't buy that I'm afraid. We've not intervened in Syria in a meaningful way. It's not my fault if Merkel takes leave of her senses and welcomes all and sundry and bugger the consequences for her neighbours when tens of thousands take her up on her offer and start heading across Europe en masse. Not my fault there are no border controls because idiotic European leaders got ahead of themselves in the early 90's.
( For the record I thought the second Iraq war was a nuts idea too).
Well, you may not buy it but it doesn't change the fact we've helped destablise the Middle East. I also don't agree with your assessment of Merkel. At the very least she is showing some leadership and doing something, which is more than can be said for Cameron who appears to be putting his head in the sand.
First of all possible apologies for "off topic ing" you - fat fingers at my end on the phone.
Disagree about Cameron he's defending our interest by saying "no". Good.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
leftie white guilt
Yes, I definitely think The Sun is a source of leftie white guilt.
I was saying you were the source, but whatever you say...
I'm not white. Although I am a leftie.
You play cricket?
No, it's the dullest sport to ever exist.
Nonsense - I'll concede the glories of Cricket are not for everyone, but it surely has to be more exciting than Baseball, which is Cricket without the intensity or lengthy explorations of sustained skill.
FPT malcolmg said: Pity no federal structure is on offer then
No point creating a federal structure until Scotland has left the UK. Scottish departure is inevitable anyway.
If you try to create it BEFORE Scotland leaves then you have to include Scottish input into the process - which is unwise since you don't want the influence of a member who is going to leave anyway. Plus it will need rework after "Screxit".
If you create it AFTER Scotland leaves then you can just set it up for the interests of the remaining member nations.
Most polls post the general election have still had No ahead and Yes was ahead in Quebec in 1995 up until polling day and still lost, Scottish independence is far from inevitable. I remain of the view FFA for Scotland and a referendum on an English Parliament and Regional Assemblies is the best way forward for the Union but it may take a while to achieve
You don't have "a while".
You have until 2019 at the latest (more likely May 2018).
Unless there is Brexit there will be no indyref2 for 10 years, The Scotland Bill is any way shortly to go through Parliament, I was thinking longer term. It should be noted that most polls since the election have still shown Scotland would vote No even despite today's Mori
You don't have 10 years. The SNP are about to register a landslide victory at Holyrood on a platform to hold an Independence referendum which polls indicate will be a decisive Yes.
The dearth of the Loyalist cause is apparent by these arguments. Every time the same erstwhile zoomers repeat the mantra where they pretend that a personal opinion is some kind of promise and that there is something Cameron can do to stop the inevitability of Scottish Independence.
Any chance you could bring it forward by a couple of years? I'd rather it happened before the idiot Osborne spends too much money upgrading Faslane and whilst the bulk of the money can be spent on Devonport.
If could have a word with the powers that be up there I'd be grateful.
No-one up here needs a word. All it would need is for Cameron to apologise for the looting of Scotland by the British Government and to stop lying about being able to stop Scotland using Sterling.
You could send him an email, get some chums to join in.
@ScottyNational: Poll:Delight as poll of 1002 folk shows Indy support at 53%, negating the trial poll of 3.6m last year - 'These polls are rarely wrong!'
This must result in the end of free movement in the EU. What are the odds of a complete failure of the EU and David Cameron taking the 'nuclear option' and campaigning for out. A week is a long time in politics - 2016/17 is an eternity
Germany = EU, even for us. The illegals in Budapest all chant "Germany, Germany" in English mind and the BBC vox pop has no trouble finding people to say "let us in, we're human beings".
As far as the Balkan economic immigrants are concerned, that's my point. Incidentally it seems from reporting of the subject, that the immigrants are overwhelmingly male - if the Germans are interested in breeding (and some Germans have taken a less than healthy stance on it in the past) then they would be best advised to reverse the existing man/ woman ratio. The birthrate amongst Germans is low - probably something to do with age, so you couldn't use local woman to breed from.
I grant you that our Arab Spring policies have been a disaster but these immigrants come from all over. Refugees are different and I suspect a large proportion of the immigrants converging on the EU are not refugees.
Germany's low birth rate is partly apparently down to Germans traditionally having small families.
You don't get insights like this on other blogs...
And if we hadn't - all the handwringers would be blaming us for not intervening.
It's a lose lose.
I doubt the Sun would be blaming the UK for not getting involved in more conflicts.
@kle4 I wouldn't call helping de-stablise the Middle East a 'limited' involvement. And if Cameron has other ideas to help solve the crisis, he should start talking about them. Because simply saying 'no' and putting his head in the sand isn't enough. And in the long-term, the prolonging of his crisis does not help our national interest.
Labour Party sources have revealed that less than half of the 553,954 eligible to vote in the contest have returned their ballot forms, so far, and members are swinging away from the Corbyn bandwagon after a barrage of damaging revelations about the frontrunner.
The other thing to watch here is the RELATIVE % turnout.
It's almost certain that turnout amongst full members is going to be highest - by a wide margin. And turnout amongst affiliates will be lowest - remember these are people who just said "Yes" on a phone call. £3 sign-ups will be somewhere in the middle.
Full members are 53% of the electorate (before any final purge - ie with an electorate of 553,954).
This means full members could well make up 60% to 65% of votes actually cast.
Jeremy Corbyn has let slip he could drastically slash the Army, Navy and RAF as he sees no need for Britain to fight wars around the world.
The 66-year-old veteran peacenik faced a furious backlash from colleagues after questioning why the UK “a country of 65 million people on the north west coast of Europe” needs “to have global reach” or even armed forces:
“Why do have to be able to have planes, transport aircraft, aircraft carriers and everything else to get anywhere in the world? Why?”
Fellow Labour MP Simon Danczuk asked last night: “Is Jeremy Corbyn off his head?”
This must result in the end of free movement in the EU. What are the odds of a complete failure of the EU and David Cameron taking the 'nuclear option' and campaigning for out. A week is a long time in politics - 2016/17 is an eternity
The chances of Cameron campaigning for an out vote? Probably the same as the chance of my cat refusing prawns for his supper. Not impossible, but infinitesimally* small.
*Apologies for introducing the infinite into this thread, hope CD13 has already gone to bed.
Germany = EU, even for us. The illegals in Budapest all chant "Germany, Germany" in English mind and the BBC vox pop has no trouble finding people to say "let us in, we're human beings".
As far as the Balkan economic immigrants are concerned, that's my point. Incidentally it seems from reporting of the subject, that the immigrants are overwhelmingly male - if the Germans are interested in breeding (and some Germans have taken a less than healthy stance on it in the past) then they would be best advised to reverse the existing man/ woman ratio. The birthrate amongst Germans is low - probably something to do with age, so you couldn't use local woman to breed from.
I grant you that our Arab Spring policies have been a disaster but these immigrants come from all over. Refugees are different and I suspect a large proportion of the immigrants converging on the EU are not refugees.
Germany's low birth rate is partly apparently down to Germans traditionally having small families.
You don't get insights like this on other blogs...
I don't get your point. @ReggieCide was suggesting it was down to an aging population, so I offered an alternative point, especially since we have an aging population yet don't have a birth-rate problem.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
Britain (us) pressure (other countries).
And why should we give in to "other countries"? They signed their stupid Schengen. This is one of the consequences. We didn't, precisely to preserve our freedom of action in these and other circumstances.
Because, as I've said before we hardly blameless in this crisis. We, after all meddled in the Middle East.
Nope don't buy that I'm afraid. We've not intervened in Syria in a meaningful way. It's not my fault if Merkel takes leave of her senses and welcomes all and sundry and bugger the consequences for her neighbours when tens of thousands take her up on her offer and start heading across Europe en masse. Not my fault there are no border controls because idiotic European leaders got ahead of themselves in the early 90's.
( For the record I thought the second Iraq war was a nuts idea too).
Well, you may not buy it but it doesn't change the fact we've helped destablise the Middle East. I also don't agree with your assessment of Merkel. At the very least she is showing some leadership and doing something, which is more than can be said for Cameron who appears to be putting his head in the sand.
It is always possible to take the wrong decision, and Merkel has done that.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
Britain (us) pressure (other countries).
And why should we give in to "other countries"? They signed their stupid Schengen. This is one of the consequences. We didn't, precisely to preserve our freedom of action in these and other circumstances.
Because, as I've said before we hardly blameless in this crisis. We, after all meddled in the Middle East.
Nope don't buy that I'm afraid. We've not intervened in Syria in a meaningful way. It's not my fault if Merkel takes leave of her senses and welcomes all and sundry and bugger the consequences for her neighbours when tens of thousands take her up on her offer and start heading across Europe en masse. Not my fault there are no border controls because idiotic European leaders got ahead of themselves in the early 90's.
( For the record I thought the second Iraq war was a nuts idea too).
Well, you may not buy it but it doesn't change the fact we've helped destablise the Middle East. I also don't agree with your assessment of Merkel. At the very least she is showing some leadership and doing something, which is more than can be said for Cameron who appears to be putting his head in the sand.
It is always possible to take the wrong decision, and Merkel has done that.
I've noticed a fairly big split across comments in the Indy, Times and Mail about this = it's going 50 50. And what's interesting is a growing number noting the total failure of the Arab world to look after its own.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
BTW, I've just seen the front-page of The Sun. Jesus H Christ. That's a first for them. I can't believe they are leading with the humanitarian issues instead of the 'EVIL immigrants' line.
I don't think that'll happen at all. While I think it's a good point that the Arab world needs to take more responsibility, as more people are displaced and flee, they'll be a moral pressure on us.
Who is "us" and from where will this pressure come?
Britain (us) pressure (other countries).
And why should we give in to "other countries"? They signed their stupid Schengen. This is one of the consequences. We didn't, precisely to preserve our freedom of action in these and other circumstances.
Because, as I've said before we hardly blameless in this crisis. We, after all meddled in the Middle East.
Nope don't buy that I'm afraid. We've not intervened in Syria in a meaningful way. It's not my fault if Merkel takes leave of her senses and welcomes all and sundry and bugger the consequences for her neighbours when tens of thousands take her up on her offer and start heading across Europe en masse. Not my fault there are no border controls because idiotic European leaders got ahead of themselves in the early 90's.
( For the record I thought the second Iraq war was a nuts idea too).
Well, you may not buy it but it doesn't change the fact we've helped destablise the Middle East. I also don't agree with your assessment of Merkel. At the very least she is showing some leadership and doing something, which is more than can be said for Cameron who appears to be putting his head in the sand.
If leadership is barking orders and stamping her feet, then leadership it is
Comments
As far as the Balkan economic immigrants are concerned, that's my point. Incidentally it seems from reporting of the subject, that the immigrants are overwhelmingly male - if the Germans are interested in breeding (and some Germans have taken a less than healthy stance on it in the past) then they would be best advised to reverse the existing man/ woman ratio. The birthrate amongst Germans is low - probably something to do with age, so you couldn't use local woman to breed from.
I grant you that our Arab Spring policies have been a disaster but these immigrants come from all over. Refugees are different and I suspect a large proportion of the immigrants converging on the EU are not refugees.
Sad to see your predictions the other day were borne out in the actual programme, Mr. 13. It was a fun discussion, though.
P.S. There are more than one infinities and some are bigger than others.
As far as the Balkan economic immigrants are concerned, that's my point. Incidentally it seems from reporting of the subject, that the immigrants are overwhelmingly male - if the Germans are interested in breeding (and some Germans have taken a less than healthy stance on it in the past) then they would be best advised to reverse the existing man/ woman ratio. The birthrate amongst Germans is low - probably something to do with age, so you couldn't use local woman to breed from.
I grant you that our Arab Spring policies have been a disaster but these immigrants come from all over. Refugees are different and I suspect a large proportion of the immigrants converging on the EU are not refugees.
If he is the Lab candidate in 2020 will probably vote for him especially if the leader is to the left of the party.
I would prefer a non Blairite MP TBH
This morning Alan Brooke praised George Osborne and I've just praised Tim Montgomerie.
I feel like a nagged spouse who's refusing to leave just to make life difficult.
"P.S. There are more than one infinities and some are bigger than others."
On that one, I'll revert to being four years old again. Mathematics ... pah!.
All we can do is provide as much glysophate as we can lay our hands on and put down impermeable barriers and hope that they don't spread to neighbouring gardens. Digging everything up and putting down black sheeting covered by carpet is probably too difficult for us to do - and if IS are the Japanese knotweed of the Jihadist World, then more extreme measures will be needed.
I don't quite understand the mindset of deselecting MPs simply because they aren't identikit ones that you approve of.
MPs have to appeal to their electorate. Stephen Lloyd the former LD MP for Eastbourne was described to me by his own supporters as the most Tory LD we could find to represent the seat.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN7P6S0WUAAj4pd.jpg
Why is this Cameron's (or our) fault?
Why can't Hungary, Turkey, or Germany sort this themselves?
Should we blame Obama as well?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-34134337
Don't worry, once here they will be on their best behaviour.
Honestly, we could do more, we surely could (whether we should, or to what extent, is a fierce debate), but there's certainly no way Cameron can 'deal with it' as requested.
In recent months, since indeed the case of the Jordanian pilot, I don't think I have seen anything about any Arab nation air force doing anything in the campaign. I wonder if they are still involved.
Mind you information on what the Sceptics and our own RAF are doing is pretty thin on the ground. The air war seems to have become a lost campaign - it is going on, it is costing millions but nobody is saying if it is doing any good or anything at all.
The more that takes hold - the less the pressure on us to take action will be.
So back to the British Empire then...
And we did not get involved in Syria shortly after the Arab Spring - some argue that things would have been a lot different for the better had we given stronger support and arms to the 'lay' Sunni opposition. I am not sure about that, but we certainly can't lay the Syrian situation on over-engagement by the US or the West.
Is someone able to give me some illustrative numbers to explain how that happens?
PRE-EDIT: I suppose if all the pupils in 19 student classes are now in, say 24 student classes then that would be a decent way of doing it. It's just weird bucketing of the data isn't it?
Iraq is bad - because we intervened.
Syria is bad - because we didn't intervene.
Either way, it's our fault.
And Mob Wives - Chicago is just as good as the original. They are from another planet and scary birds
Syria is bad is because we haven't started to sort out the mess
That's basically it, they must have reduced the variance, and it probably means that there are now fewer classes with say 20 or less pupils, so some pupils will be marginally worse off.
I don't think things would have been rosy, but I don't think there would be a migration crisis. I also though they'd established that Iraq didn't have a WMD.
Yes, there has been a massive influx of people trying to get into Europe this year and yes there is a massive problem. But a why the sudden attention on Syrian refugees, a very large proportion of whom seem to have fled the homeland long ago?
Labour Party sources have revealed that less than half of the 553,954 eligible to vote in the contest have returned their ballot forms, so far, and members are swinging away from the Corbyn bandwagon after a barrage of damaging revelations about the frontrunner.
http://bit.ly/1KJdvgc
Why can't we do that with all of them?
Where we did go wrong as I argued on here the other day, and was roundly shouted at for doing so, is we gave words of encouragement for the Arab Spring. That as far as Syria is concerned is surely the limit of our culpability.
( For the record I thought the second Iraq war was a nuts idea too).
IF Cameron lets in 10,000 migrants that will not make a dent in the hundreds of thousands arriving in Europe. No doubt shortly after taking 10,000 there will be calls for another 10,000 and another.
Trouble is: Europe have not the resources to do it and the USA not the stomach for it.
Both don't want to spend the money.
I never said that the entire crisis was down to the UK, merely that we weren't blameless and had contributed to the de-stablising of the Middle East, and therefore this crisis.
No, it's the dullest sport to ever exist.
Money for wars is always found.
(I've always found your nuanced and informed viewpoint on the matter very helpful and a counterbalance to the more knee-jerk, hindsight-ridden perspectives in the media. I'd have been a willing customer for a good book on what was one of the most profound policy decisions of the 2000s.)
It's a lose lose.
'We must do something' does not mean 'this is something, therefore we must do it' - I'm persuadable, but I'm not convinced thus far that our limited involvement in this crisis, coupled with the fact we are assisting in other ways, in some cases a great deal more than others in Europe apparently, means we are morally obliged to participate in a plan which may not even be of any help, or could be handled in a better way.
Disagree about Cameron he's defending our interest by saying "no". Good.
@kle4 I wouldn't call helping de-stablise the Middle East a 'limited' involvement. And if Cameron has other ideas to help solve the crisis, he should start talking about them. Because simply saying 'no' and putting his head in the sand isn't enough. And in the long-term, the prolonging of his crisis does not help our national interest.
It's almost certain that turnout amongst full members is going to be highest - by a wide margin. And turnout amongst affiliates will be lowest - remember these are people who just said "Yes" on a phone call. £3 sign-ups will be somewhere in the middle.
Full members are 53% of the electorate (before any final purge - ie with an electorate of 553,954).
This means full members could well make up 60% to 65% of votes actually cast.
*Apologies for introducing the infinite into this thread, hope CD13 has already gone to bed.