I note the headlines of the Mail and the Sun. Presumably we'll now get some action.
Action to make the route here safer? Because taking more once they've made the dangerous journey just causes more people to make the dangerous journey, leading to more dead children.
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.
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.
Having obviously experience of them all, I bow to your superior knowledge
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.
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.
Our involvement in Syria has been limited. Since some of the underlying anddeeply destabilizing issues of the middle east even today have been in place for hundreds of years - the Sunni-Shia division springs to mind - I think there are limits to how much we can blame ourselves for the most recent turmoil not being resolved. We sure as hell haven't helped much, but shipping refugees from there to here isn't likely to help resolve that situation and is just not socially or culturally sustainable at the present time, that's why the pressure being on the richer islamic states makes so much more sense than us, with the best of intentions, shipping refugees over en masse without acknowledging what we are doing.
As for Cameron, not accepting more refugees (which I am prepared to accept even if he is not, though how many is reasonable I do not know), will not in any way solve the problem that is causing the refugees, so while he could be attacked for being heartless if we wish, I don't see that it has anything to do with ideas on how to 'solve' the crisis. Particularly as has been pointed we are not doing nothing, we are just not currently on board with this latest plan which appears to have been drawn up on the back of a fag packet by Merkel without any consultation.
Putting our head in the sand won't solve the problem, that is true, if the problem is a rising tide, but nor will standing still and putting on some wellies - it might make us not feel the effects for a bit (in this torturous analogy, assuaging our consciences), but it won't do anything to fix the actual problem of getting out of the mess.
I don't have an answer to that problem, there probably isn't one, but ignoring what contributions we have made, which are apparently not inconsiderable, as though we ignoring any level of culpability when we are not, or accepting a greater moral or physical burden than is sustainable or even helpful to our own societies or those we wish to help, is not a solution either, and focusing on assistance closer to home and actions from those better able to assist, may well be more meaningful than some guilt ridden acceptance of an entirely arbitrary number of refugees to be accepted into Britain.
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.
But, we enjoy looting Scotland. Why stop?
Shush - they'll move their sheep away from the border
David Cameron is right IMO to say the solution to the migrant crisis is solving the various problems in their countries of origin rather than allowing huge levels of immigration from those countries into Europe.
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.
Cameron's basic analysis is correct on two accounts: from a political perspective, that the British public do not want him to be seen to "cave in"; from a policy perspective, when a system breaks down then you can't fix it by pushing greater numbers through it. If the EU, including Britain, had the stomach to accept it, then there is certainly enough demand for several million migrants/refugees (and that's a spectrum, not a binary distinction) per year from the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East and Central and South Asia. Once you're in a numbers game, no number we take can ever be "enough".
If we're concerned that thousands of people are drowning in unsafe boats, then it is possible the correct solution is not to encourage hundreds of thousands more people to take unsafe boats (ditto backs of lorries, undercarriages of planes...) in the hopes of reaching the Promised Land. The Australian approach is in some senses inhumane but has also prevented many deaths of vulnerable people - it's not obvious that the "ethical" choice is to tell people "keep coming; send us your fittest, your least risk-averse, your masses with a few grand spare to pay off the evil people smugglers". (An analogy: as a matter of principle, I take pains to remove or destroy a balloon or ball or some other toy I see in the middle of a busy road because I don't want kids to take risks trying to reach it. Somebody who places a toy in the middle of a busy road, then boasts of how much they love kids - look at how they donate toys to children! - is Doing It Wrong.) If we really want to help, there is a utilitarian argument for aiding people in situ - the money goes further that way - and if we do want to bring refugees here, carefully target those with war injuries or other disabilities or infirmities that leave them most vulnerable, rather than encourage precisely those people to flee to us who least need our assistance.
David Cameron is right IMO to say the solution to the migrant crisis is solving the various problems in their countries of origin rather than allowing huge levels of immigration from those countries into Europe.
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.
Cameron's basic analysis is correct on two accounts: from a political perspective, that the British public do not want him to be seen to "cave in"; from a policy perspective, when a system breaks down then you can't fix it by pushing greater numbers through it..
Given the media pressure from sources not generally favourable to sympathetic moves in this area, the former may not remain true forever, which I am fine with, but I do think the latter will continue to be a problem.
We can certainly find space for refugees, and politically that can be sold to the public in the right circumstances even in these hostile to immigration times, but policy wise the system seems creaking at best, and if we accept housing more refugees, we need to make sure we do not pretend to ourselves that is usefully adding to a resolution to this mess. Useful for those individuals assisted, to be sure, but just as economic migrants are so often conflated with asylum seekers in this debate, so too are mitigation or cosmetic measures conflated with resolution measures, and the lack of the former as being the same as not addressing the latter.
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.
It would be hilarious. But the foolish followers of the SNP don't realise that the leadership perhaps doesn't really want independence - they'd have no one to blame then...
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.
Now that is picky. Our cat, being Welsh, is quite happy with prawns and roast chicken (and roast pork, turkey, beef) . The other day I was cruel I put prawns in one dish and chicken in another and put both of them down at the same time. He couldn't decide which to go for first and just stood there looking from one bowl to the other.
He still wants taxpayer paid SPADs working on the campaign. It's infuriating that he is dragging his feet over having an honest debate on this.
SPADs are not allowed to do party activities and are employed civil servants. If they want to work on the campaign then they should resign their department-paid positions and be rehired by the party.
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.
Our involvement in Syria has been limited. Since some of the underlying anddeeply destabilizing issues of the middle east even today have been in place for hundreds of years - the Sunni-Shia division springs to mind - I think there are limits to how much we can blame ourselves for the most recent turmoil not being resolved. We sure as hell haven't helped much, but shipping refugees from there to here isn't likely to help resolve that situation and is just not socially or culturally sustainable at the present time, that's why the pressure being on the richer islamic states makes so much more sense than us, with the best of intentions, shipping refugees over en masse without acknowledging what we are doing.
....
Firstly, our direct involvement with Syria may well have been limited, but our indirect involvement (such as the invasion of Iraq, and the repercussions that has had for the whole of the Middle East, including the rise of ISIS who are terrorising Syria today) has not been limited. Secondly, I'm not suggesting the UK blame itself entirely for the problems of the Middle East. What I am saying though, is that we have played our part in contributing to those problems, especially in recent history. And Cameron merely saying 'no' has everything to do with the crisis. Because until we start engaging on this issue with the rest of Europe, and offer some kind of solution then yes, we are doing nothing. Even if we disagree with Merkel's solution, she is not shying away from the problem: Cameroon is.
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.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
I note the headlines of the Mail and the Sun. Presumably we'll now get some action.
I'm looking forward to The Sun & The Daily Mail being called members of the out of touch liberal metropolitan elite
Indeed.
As one of PB's three most enthusiastic supporters of these migrants and immigration in general I sense a tipping point in the mood
I think so too - at least among some of those of the Right. I've see Tim Montgomerie, Toby Young etc all sympathising with these refugees and helping them in some way.
Saluting someone for "doing something" when they are doing the wrong thing is very silly. David Cameron has been excellent on this. He is the only EU leader that understands simply accepting more migrants doesn't solve anything, as it merely increases the incentive to come, meaning more illegal dangerous crossings and more people dying.
What Cameron is doing is the right thing: focusing on the UN-backed fund to help Syria and to provide places of safety in the region. If we scale up that approach we stop anyone needing to make the trip, and they can also easily return to Syria to help rebuild the country once this dreadful war is over.
Saluting someone for "doing something" when they are doing the wrong thing is very silly. David Cameron has been excellent on this. He is the only EU leader that understands simply accepting more migrants doesn't solve anything, as it merely increases the incentive to come, meaning more illegal dangerous crossings and more people dying.
What Cameron is doing is the right thing: focusing on the UN-backed fund to help Syria and to provide places of safety in the region. If we scale up that approach we stop anyone needing to make the trip, and they can also easily return to Syria to help rebuild the country once this dreadful war is over.
Agree. Cameron has gone up in my estimation enormously. He's being clearheaded and unsentimental about the situation which is always the best course.
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.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
Saluting someone for "doing something" when they are doing the wrong thing is very silly. David Cameron has been excellent on this. He is the only EU leader that understands simply accepting more migrants doesn't solve anything, as it merely increases the incentive to come, meaning more illegal dangerous crossings and more people dying.
What Cameron is doing is the right thing: focusing on the UN-backed fund to help Syria and to provide places of safety in the region. If we scale up that approach we stop anyone needing to make the trip, and they can also easily return to Syria to help rebuild the country once this dreadful war is over.
I don't believe Merkel is doing anything wrong. Accepting migrants may not solve the solution completely, but it saves the lives of desperate people fleeing a war zone who cannot live there. Currently Cameron is the EU leader with no short-term or long-term solutions to this crisis. And the UN are useless - look at how successful that plan to provide places of safety has been - so successful we have a huge migration crisis.
Our involvement in Syria has been limited. Since some of the underlying anddeeply destabilizing issues of the middle east even today have been in place for hundreds of years - the Sunni-Shia division springs to mind - I think there are limits to how much we can blame ourselves for the most recent turmoil not being resolved.
A big part of the problem in Syria is the monopolisation of power in the hands of the Alawite sect: a precarious situation, that stems from the French recruitment of Alawites into the military during the colonial period. The Alawites are too small a minority, and too distinct from the Sunni and mainstream Shia population (rough approximation: think how unlike mainstream Christianity the Mormons are) for that situation to have persisted indefinitely. It meant that a sufficiently large external destabilising event, as the Arab Spring was, was always likely to lead to serious trouble. The fact that Syria had a fairly large and loyal security service, as well as powerful regional allies, meant that Assad was never going to go easily, and any attempt to get rid of him would mire down into a bloody mess. The ingredients for complete societal collapse had been there for decades. In a perfect world, perhaps it could have been over in months. As it is, we are into the years. If we are very unlucky, residual conflict could linger on for decades. While it isn't something that is directly "Britain's fault", it is not something that was unforeseeable. It's somewhat disappointing the West doesn't seem to have had contingency plans in place.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
He is facing up to the problem. He has contributed more money to the UN's Syria fund than all the other EU states put together, and he has deployed the Royal Navy in the Med. You just don't like the fact he has not adopted your (in my opinion, badly flawed) solution.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
Well, tbh they are - for reasons I've already elaborated on in this thread.
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.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
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.
But why would they be more committed than full members paying £45?
I think £3 sign-ups are more likely to be mobile / not open their post / lose their ballot paper / forget etc.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
Yes facing up to problems is vital. Choosing to do something that will not solve the problem is bloody stupid. The UK could say OK we will take 50,000 people every month, that will not solve the problem. On the contrary it will probably make it worse.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
He is facing up to the problem. He has contributed more money to the UN's Syria fund than all the other EU states put together, and he has deployed the Royal Navy in the Med. You just don't like the fact he has not adopted your (in my opinion, badly flawed) solution.
He is not facing up to the problem - those moves have clearly been unsuccessful in stopping the crisis, and he has not come up with an alternative solution to what Merkel has just said. That's what I don't like. I've already said, that part of my criticism is that he is offering no alternative solution to the crisis. He doesn't have to accept those refugees. But he does have to engage with other EU leaders. And currently he's not doing that.
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.
But why would they be more committed than full members paying £45?
I think £3 sign-ups are more likely to be mobile / not open their post / lose their ballot paper / forget etc.
Because they signed up more recently? The £3 signup has only been offered recently if I remember correctly.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
Yes facing up to problems is vital. Choosing to do something that will not solve the problem is bloody stupid. The UK could say OK we will take 50,000 people every month, that will not solve the problem. On the contrary it will probably make it worse.
And with that I bid you all goodnight.
As I've said before, I don't agree that it won't solve the problem. It will help the lives of many refugees, and certainly will not make their lives worse. Obviously taking in refugees isn't enough - we need a long-term strategy in regards to stablising the Middle East, too.
Scotland will not separate. It's safe to be pro-Yes now, because there's no imminent threat of a referendum. If and when there were ever to be another, the result would be the same.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
He is facing up to the problem. He has contributed more money to the UN's Syria fund than all the other EU states put together, and he has deployed the Royal Navy in the Med. You just don't like the fact he has not adopted your (in my opinion, badly flawed) solution.
There's the thing. Whatever the UK does is never good enough.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
I've got from Edinburgh to the south coast in the last few threads. If it sounds like virtue-signalling whining, and looks like virtue-signalling whining, it probably is.
More significantly, though, papers have only one reason to be - to sell papers. The front page doesn't equal the editorial. They're more nuanced than that.
David Cameron is right IMO to say the solution to the migrant crisis is solving the various problems in their countries of origin rather than allowing huge levels of immigration from those countries into Europe.
I said elsewhere that bleeding heart are all very well, but entirely the wrong organ to use in decision making here.
A dog is for life, not just for Christmas. The same applies to dishing out free passes to fashionable migrants now. What happens when the next crisis pops up and next?
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
Yes facing up to problems is vital. Choosing to do something that will not solve the problem is bloody stupid. The UK could say OK we will take 50,000 people every month, that will not solve the problem. On the contrary it will probably make it worse.
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. Merkel
Our involvement in Syria has been limited. Since some of the underlying anddeeply destabilizing is ....
What I am saying though, is that we have played our part in contributing to those problems, especially in recent history.
I don't deny that, but as I said I think the extent to which that obligates us to actions that may not even help but do nothing but make us feel better about ourselves is limited nonetheless.
And given the level of aid we are apparently providing, I'm personally not particularly concerned if Cameron is not jumping on board with those nations who are helping less in the way we are, but are suggesting helping in another fashion. Our nations may well have different views on the best way each can contribute - not participating in the refugee issue does not mean we are not helping, which seems to be the implication here which I resent. It could well be argued that they are focusing on the superficial (if heartrending) aspects of the problem, people washing up on Europe's shores, rather than the actual problem. I won't condemn them for that, I'd be fine with Cameron participating on that basis too, but it's not inherently morally superior to focus on the symptom rather than the disease just because it's more obvious.
It may well be we can and should do both, but Merkel moaning about not taking in more refugees is not a solution to the underlying problem at all, it shouldn't be treated as such. Yes, it'll reduce one aspect of the problem, for a time at least, but that's not the same thing, and it's a legitimate view to say that and so refuse to be emotionally blackmailed.
Cameron's stance might well be wrong, time will tell, but he and we as a nation have not ignored the issue - they've just, so far, come to a differing conclusion, which is not the same thing.
So I think reasonable people may think the government is adopting the wrong strategy, but it would unfair to say they are not making their own attempts on this issue.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
He is facing up to the problem. He has contributed more money to the UN's Syria fund than all the other EU states put together, and he has deployed the Royal Navy in the Med. You just don't like the fact he has not adopted your (in my opinion, badly flawed) solution.
There's the thing. Whatever the UK does is never good enough.
Doing nothing would have been good enough. In Iraq, in Libya, and in Syria. We contributed to humanitarian catastrophes and we should have the balls to admit it.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
I've got from Edinburgh to the south coast in the last few threads. If it sounds like virtue-signalling whining, and looks like virtue-signalling whining, it probably is.
More significantly, though, papers have only one reason to be - to sell papers. The front page doesn't equal the editorial. They're more nuanced than that.
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.
But why would they be more committed than full members paying £45?
I think £3 sign-ups are more likely to be mobile / not open their post / lose their ballot paper / forget etc.
Because they signed up more recently? The £3 signup has only been offered recently if I remember correctly.
Full members have to be paid up - so they will have paid £45 within the last 12 months.
£3 ers will be more likely to be young, students, mobile, in rented accommodation, shared accommodation, moving frequently, away travelling, away on courses, much less organised etc etc.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
He is facing up to the problem. He has contributed more money to the UN's Syria fund than all the other EU states put together, and he has deployed the Royal Navy in the Med. You just don't like the fact he has not adopted your (in my opinion, badly flawed) solution.
There's the thing. Whatever the UK does is never good enough.
Doing nothing would have been good enough. In Iraq, in Libya, and in Syria. We contributed to humanitarian catastrophes and we should have the balls to admit it.
We did nothing in Syria and that made it worse.
Wars are bad - end of. We didn't start this one - the crazy followers of some sky fairy did.
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. Merkel
Our involvement in Syria has been limited. Since some of the underlying anddeeply destabilizing is ....
What I am saying though, is that we have played our part in contributing to those problems, especially in recent history.
I don't deny that, but as I said I think the extent to which that obligates us to actions that may not even help but do nothing but make us feel better about ourselves is limited nonetheless. ....
That's the point: Cameron is not suggesting helping in another fashion. He's simply going 'NO' and that's it. And while I appreciate we've given aid, it's clear at this stage that that policy isn't enough to solve this crisis.
I don't deny that, but as I said I think the extent to which that obligates us to actions that may not even help but do nothing but make us feel better about ourselves is limited nonetheless.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
I've got from Edinburgh to the south coast in the last few threads. If it sounds like virtue-signalling whining, and looks like virtue-signalling whining, it probably is.
More significantly, though, papers have only one reason to be - to sell papers. The front page doesn't equal the editorial. They're more nuanced than that.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Have you noticed though that whenever we're proud of Cameron, it's always when he says something, never when he's done something. He's very good at pithy speeches, utterly useless at delivering on them.
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.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
With Cameron though,how long will he hold out before we see the usual backtracking .
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
He is facing up to the problem. He has contributed more money to the UN's Syria fund than all the other EU states put together, and he has deployed the Royal Navy in the Med. You just don't like the fact he has not adopted your (in my opinion, badly flawed) solution.
He is not facing up to the problem - those moves have clearly been unsuccessful in stopping the crisis, and he has not come up with an alternative solution to what Merkel has just said. That's what I don't like. I've already said, that part of my criticism is that he is offering no alternative solution to the crisis. He doesn't have to accept those refugees. But he does have to engage with other EU leaders. And currently he's not doing that.
I'll grant he doesn't have an alternative to their migrant proposal (he is trying something on the 'what is causing the migrant problem' issue, if with no visible success but that's no different to anyone else, but not the 'where do the migrants now go' issue, which is connected to but separate to the former - a problem here is people pretending the latter is the same as the former), but given that he does not agree with their solution, on what basis can he engage with them further on this issue? They want the UK to do X, he does not, there's nothing more to talk about until one side caves.
I know it's anathema to the EU, but sometimes further talking will not add value to the process - either they convince him to cave now, or they need to move ahead with the plan sans UK, and find some way to make us pay for it later, rather than delay any good that might come from their plans by having a cathartic moan at Cameron.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
I've got from Edinburgh to the south coast in the last few threads. If it sounds like virtue-signalling whining, and looks like virtue-signalling whining, it probably is.
More significantly, though, papers have only one reason to be - to sell papers. The front page doesn't equal the editorial. They're more nuanced than that.
And if it looks like partisan-whining, and defending it probably is.
It's certainly not a plea to let them all in.
I don't think anyone is saying we must let ALL refugees in, but that we have an obligation to help and provide a solution to this crisis. Which PB Tories (TheScreamingEagles as an exception) don't agree with and feel is 'metropolitan liberal elite'.
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.
But why would they be more committed than full members paying £45?
I think £3 sign-ups are more likely to be mobile / not open their post / lose their ballot paper / forget etc.
Because they signed up more recently? The £3 signup has only been offered recently if I remember correctly.
Full members have to be paid up - so they will have paid £45 within the last 12 months.
£3 ers will be more likely to be young, students, mobile, in rented accommodation, shared accommodation, moving frequently, away travelling, away on courses, much less organised etc etc.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
I've got from Edinburgh to the south coast in the last few threads. If it sounds like virtue-signalling whining, and looks like virtue-signalling whining, it probably is.
More significantly, though, papers have only one reason to be - to sell papers. The front page doesn't equal the editorial. They're more nuanced than that.
And if it looks like partisan-whining, and defending it probably is.
Yep - perhaps it is too nuanced for some to understand, but it in the main supports Cameron whilst not treading-down the bleeding-heart line too. Solution is not to open the floodgates, but carefully considering the position and tackle it at source.
You do realise that it is easy for Merkel to say what she is saying, right? A declining population needs filling.
Mass and uncontrolled immigration in this age can only end badly.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
He is facing up to the problem. He has contributed more money to the UN's Syria fund than all the other EU states put together, and he has deployed the Royal Navy in the Med. You just don't like the fact he has not adopted your (in my opinion, badly flawed) solution.
He is not facing up to the problem - those moves have clearly been unsuccessful in stopping the crisis, and he has not come up with an alternative solution to what Merkel has just said. That's what I don't like. I've already said, that part of my criticism is that he is offering no alternative solution to the crisis. He doesn't have to accept those refugees. But he does have to engage with other EU leaders. And currently he's not doing that.
I'll grant he doesn't have an alternative to their migrant proposal, but given that he does not agree with their solution, on what basis can he engage with them further on this issue? They want the UK to do X, he does not, there's nothing more to talk about until one side caves.
I know it's anathema to the EU, but sometimes further talking will not add value to the process - either they convince him to cave now, or they need to move ahead with the plan sans UK, and find some way to make us pay for it later, rather than delay any good that might come from their plans by having a cathartic moan at Cameron.
He can offer an alternative idea and see how they respond to that. That's how he can engage. And further talking doesn't add value to the process if it's futile talk with no viable solutions. But if there are viable solutions on the table, it's worth it.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
He is facing up to the problem. He has contributed more money to the UN's Syria fund than all the other EU states put together, and he has deployed the Royal Navy in the Med. You just don't like the fact he has not adopted your (in my opinion, badly flawed) solution.
He is not facing up to the problem - those moves have clearly been unsuccessful in stopping the crisis, and he has not come up with an alternative solution to what Merkel has just said. That's what I don't like. I've already said, that part of my criticism is that he is offering no alternative solution to the crisis. He doesn't have to accept those refugees. But he does have to engage with other EU leaders. And currently he's not doing that.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
He is facing up to the problem. He has contributed more money to the UN's Syria fund than all the other EU states put together, and he has deployed the Royal Navy in the Med. You just don't like the fact he has not adopted your (in my opinion, badly flawed) solution.
He is not facing up to the problem - those moves have clearly been unsuccessful in stopping the crisis, and he has not come up with an alternative solution to what Merkel has just said. That's what I don't like. I've already said, that part of my criticism is that he is offering no alternative solution to the crisis. He doesn't have to accept those refugees. But he does have to engage with other EU leaders. And currently he's not doing that.
I'll grant he do
I know it's
He can offer an alternative idea and see how they respond to that. That's how he can engage. And further talking doesn't add value to the process if it's futile talk with no viable solutions. But if there are viable solutions on the table, it's worth it.
What alternative idea? They say take more refugees, he says no, it's a binary choice. Right or wrong that decision may be, there's no other options I can see to this specific issue.
He says treat problem at source, they presumably say that's great, but we've still got these refugees to deal with - again, what other options.
Please understand I'm not berating you about this, as I say I'm happy for us to take more refugees, but I don't see that the government's position is to be vilified as ignoring the wider issues, even if it could be called cold and heartless to the periphery if distressingly front and centre issue of the migration issue.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
I've got from Edinburgh to the south coast in the last few threads. If it sounds like virtue-signalling whining, and looks like virtue-signalling whining, it probably is.
More significantly, though, papers have only one reason to be - to sell papers. The front page doesn't equal the editorial. They're more nuanced than that.
And if it looks like partisan-whining, and defending it probably is.
It's certainly not a plea to let them all in.
I don't think anyone is saying we must let ALL refugees in, but that we have an obligation to help and provide a solution to this crisis. Which PB Tories (TheScreamingEagles as an exception) don't agree with and feel is 'metropolitan liberal elite'.
As others have pointed out, we are helping. We've contributed more to the UN Syrian Fund than the rest of the EU put together.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
I've got from Edinburgh to the south coast in the last few threads. If it sounds like virtue-signalling whining, and looks like virtue-signalling whining, it probably is.
More significantly, though, papers have only one reason to be - to sell papers. The front page doesn't equal the editorial. They're more nuanced than that.
And if it looks like partisan-whining, and defending it probably is.
It's certainly not a plea to let them all in.
I don't think anyone is saying we must let ALL refugees in, but that we have an obligation to help and provide a solution to this crisis. Which PB Tories (TheScreamingEagles as an exception) don't agree with and feel is 'metropolitan liberal elite'.
How many migrants would you and screamingeagles be happy with that Britain takes in ?
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
I've got from Edinburgh to the south coast in the last few threads. If it sounds like virtue-signalling whining, and looks like virtue-signalling whining, it probably is.
More significantly, though, papers have only one reason to be - to sell papers. The front page doesn't equal the editorial. They're more nuanced than that.
And if it looks like partisan-whining, and defending it probably is.
Yep - perhaps it is too nuanced for some to understand, but it in the main supports Cameron whilst not treading-down the bleeding-heart line too. Solution is not to open the floodgates, but carefully considering the position and tackle it at source.
You do realise that it is easy for Merkel to say what she is saying, right? A declining population needs filling.
Mass and uncontrolled immigration in this age can only end badly.
How is a call for Cameron to 'show what he is made of' supporting him exactly? Supporting him would be endorsing his current position. The Sun don't do that. They feel Cameron has more to do, evidently by that last line. And it certainly is a bleeding-heart-liberal line. Because they clearly spell out, that they feel Cameron has an obligation to help provide a solution to this crisis - a stance you've labelled as virtue-signalling, and others have dismissed the idea the UK has any obligation at all.
And no, I don't think it is easy at all to attempt to try and solve the biggest crisis to hit Europe since WW2, so kudos to Merkel for attempting to do that. And given that Merkel is looking for each country to take a share each (at what level a country can accept it), I'd hardly call it 'uncontrolled'.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
I've got from Edinburgh to the south coast in the last few threads. If it sounds like virtue-signalling whining, and looks like virtue-signalling whining, it probably is.
More significantly, though, papers have only one reason to be - to sell papers. The front page doesn't equal the editorial. They're more nuanced than that.
And if it looks like partisan-whining, and defending it probably is.
It's certainly not a plea to let them all in.
I don't think anyone is saying we must let ALL refugees in, but that we have an obligation to help and provide a solution to this crisis. Which PB Tories (TheScreamingEagles as an exception) don't agree with and feel is 'metropolitan liberal elite'.
How many migrants would you and screamingeagles be happy with that Britain takes in ?
Cameron's basic analysis is correct on two accounts: from a political perspective, that the British public do not want him to be seen to "cave in"; from a policy perspective, when a system breaks down then you can't fix it by pushing greater numbers through it..
Given the media pressure from sources not generally favourable to sympathetic moves in this area, the former may not remain true forever, which I am fine with, but I do think the latter will continue to be a problem.
We can certainly find space for refugees, and politically that can be sold to the public in the right circumstances even in these hostile to immigration times, but policy wise the system seems creaking at best, and if we accept housing more refugees, we need to make sure we do not pretend to ourselves that is usefully adding to a resolution to this mess. Useful for those individuals assisted, to be sure, but just as economic migrants are so often conflated with asylum seekers in this debate, so too are mitigation or cosmetic measures conflated with resolution measures, and the lack of the former as being the same as not addressing the latter.
Agree with you in the first point. Particularly in the case of Syrian refugees it is impossible not to feel personal sympathy, regardless of whether the current system of getting them here represents a policy car crash (and one that has killed thousands of people). There was a similar moodswing during the Kosovo crisis, when tens of thousands of refugees were camped out in Macedonia and stories of Serb paramilitary violence filled the press. I am sure we can have another such moment here. Whether it will last beyond the scope of the present crisis is a different matter.
I also note that the vast majority of the asylum seekers (I use the term carefully - not everyone claiming asylum will receive it) reaching Germany are not coming from Syria or other wartorn lands, while there are large numbers from the Balkans and peaceable parts of Africa. It is entirely possible for people's sympathy to be selective rather than extend to a blanket invitation. The present mess does a very poor job of targeting help at those people the public are most sympathetic to, so I'm not sure that simply upping the numbers is the kind of intervention the public are crying out for. I suspect if Cameron comes up with a face-saving intervention it will be more nuanced than Merkel's: my money would be on something that produces dramatic-looking news pictures, but less-dramatic - albeit more targeted - raw numbers.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
He is facing up to the problem. He has contributed more money to the UN's Syria fund than all the other EU states put together, and he has deployed the Royal Navy in the Med. You just don't like the fact he has not adopted your (in my opinion, badly flawed) solution.
There's the thing. Whatever the UK does is never good enough.
Doing nothing would have been good enough. In Iraq, in Libya, and in Syria. We contributed to humanitarian catastrophes and we should have the balls to admit it.
We did nothing in Syria and that made it worse.
Wars are bad - end of. We didn't start this one - the crazy followers of some sky fairy did.
Crazies who would have been swiftly dealt with (many times over) had their ranks not been consistently refreshed with hordes of newly trained and armed foreign militants who have nothing to do with Syria - something in part supported by us.
The Sun’s editorial seems to me to be pretty hardline:
1. Accept genuine refugees, 2. Turn back economic migrants, 3. Devote more resources to distinguishing between the two, 4. Bomb ISIS, 5. Suspend Schengen, 6 Send overseas aid to Libya and Syria to establish law & order.
It is pretty much what I would have thought the Sun would say.
I don't deny that, but as I said I think the extent to which that obligates us to actions that may not even help but do nothing but make us feel better about ourselves is limited nonetheless.
Obliges, please.I am obligated to accept your correction.
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. Merkel
Our involvement in Syria has been limited. Since some of the underlying anddeeply destabilizing is ....
What I am saying though, is that we have played our part in contributing to those problems, especially in recent history.
I don't deny that, but as I said I think the extent to which that obligates us to actions that may not even help but do nothing but make us feel better about ourselves is limited nonetheless. ....
That's the point: Cameron is not suggesting helping in another fashion. He's simply going 'NO' and that's it. And while I appreciate we've given aid, it's clear at this stage that that policy isn't enough to solve this crisis.
Indeed, but nor is it clear that letting in masses of migrants to the west will help. If he thinks it won't help them or us, it is not immoral to refuse to participate - that we must do something doesn't mean this has to be the something we must do. But I feel we are going in circles so I shall drop it.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution.
To one tiny if emotive part of the problem, like scooping water from an overflowing bucket. Thank you Chancellor Merkel, that'll help a bit and I cannot ignore that, but please don't act like the you've stopped the flow into the bucket either, or that those not on water scooping duty who are ineffectively trying to prevent the flow are ignoring the issue.
PS If anyone is offended by my use of a 'flood' analogy in relation to refugees and migrants, please attribute it to the late hour.
Given the media pressure from sources not generally favourable to sympathetic moves in this area, the former may not remain true forever, which I am fine with, but I do think the latter will continue to be a problem.
We can certainly find space for refugees, and politically that can be sold to the public in the right circumstances even in these hostile to immigration times, but policy wise the system seems creaking at best, and if we accept housing more refugees, we need to make sure we do not pretend to ourselves that is usefully adding to a resolution to this mess. Useful for those individuals assisted, to be sure, but just as economic migrants are so often conflated with asylum seekers in this debate, so too are mitigation or cosmetic measures conflated with resolution measures, and the lack of the former as being the same as not addressing the latter.
As for the conflation of economic migrants and refugees, I think there really is a spectrum and that is something that is getting lost in the discussion. Plenty of people are both. There are lots of migrants arriving in Germany along the Sahara-Med-Italian route from places like Gambia and Senegal. No war, no serious ethnic conflict, actually rather improved economies (which ironically makes this kind of expensive journey viable for more people). But poor enough that Europe offers a massively better-off life. And well, the justice system there isn't the fairest. Police will hassle you. If they harass you badly enough, stop you flogging your wares on the streets, threaten your livelihood unless you pay up your bribes...you're "fleeing" something, right? Enough to lodge an asylum claim. Probably not enough to win, but it's worth a try.
On the other hand, refugees from Syria have a very strong case for asylum. But why is it they want to come to Western Europe so strongly? There's no doubt that the economics is a pull-factor. Somebody who's spent a few years living in Turkey or Lebanon, has settled there, maybe even studied or found a job, may still want to head west to Europe in search of a better life - they're not directly fleeing a warzone, but the reason they are displaced is ultimately a horrific conflict. Simply saying that person X is an economic migrant while in contradistinction person Y is a refugee is a binarist affectation. Albeit that is at least an improvement on painting all migration from poor/chaotic to rich/stable countries with the same brush.
Saying the opposite of what someone whining on a political betting website thinks does not mean he is not displaying leadership.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Whining? I'm just giving an opinion. So suddenly, not giving an opinion you like is 'whining'? And @TheScreamingEagles you can claim your £5. Because a PBer (indirectly) has just bracketed the likes of The Sun and the Mail (and perhaps even the Telegraph when you look at their headline) as part of the 'metropolitan elite'. And he is not displaying leadership. The first part of being a leader is facing up to problems.
...
...
...
How is a call for Cameron to 'show what he is made of' supporting him exactly? Supporting him would be endorsing his current position. The Sun don't do that. They feel Cameron has more to do, evidently by that last line. And it certainly is a bleeding-heart-liberal line. Because they clearly spell out, that they feel Cameron has an obligation to help provide a solution to this crisis - a stance you've labelled as virtue-signalling, and others have dismissed the idea the UK has any obligation at all.
And no, I don't think it is easy at all to attempt to try and solve the biggest crisis to hit Europe since WW2, so kudos to Merkel for attempting to do that. And given that Merkel is looking for each country to take a share each (at what level a country can accept it), I'd hardly call it 'uncontrolled'.
I can attempt to make a souffle with the wrong ingredients. It will not work.
Attempts are meaningless. Results are what matter. Accepting migrants at the level Merkel has signalled will end with uncontrolled amounts. Demanding others follow suit will not work. How is telling people what to do solving the problem? How is encouraging large numbers to come to Europe going to stop people drowning in the Med. Would surely make it worse....
I'm still a bit flabbergasted why you wouldn't, if in a dire situation, especially with family, settle in Turkey.....
If I had to flea I'd try Wales/Ireland/Scotland in that order first, then maybe France. But not, for example for distance sake, Saudi.
This may sound callous; it is not meant to be. Problems need solving, not crying over. Solutions take time; they're rarely solved with the easiest or most painless answer.
Put portacabins that can house 10 people at each end of the 500 wealthiest streets in the UK (outside of London) and house 10,000 Syrian refugees there... The poorest in our own society don't deserve to wear the burden
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution.
To one tiny if emotive part of the problem, like scooping water from an overflowing bucket. Thank you Chancellor Merkel, that'll help a bit and I cannot ignore that, but please don't act like the you've stopped the flow into the bucket either, or that those not on water scooping duty who are ineffectively trying to prevent the flow are ignoring the issue.
PS If anyone is offended by my use of a 'flood' analogy in relation to refugees and migrants, please attribute it to the late hour.
I can attempt to make a souffle with the wrong ingredients. It will not work.
Attempts are meaningless. Results are what matter. Accepting migrants at the level Merkel has signalled will end with uncontrolled amounts. Demanding others follow suit will not work. How is telling people what to do solving the problem? How is encouraging large numbers to come to Europe going to stop people drowning in the Med. Would surely make it worse....
I'm still a bit flabbergasted why you wouldn't, if in a dire situation, especially with family, settle in Turkey.....
If I had to flea I'd try Wales/Ireland/Scotland in that order first, then maybe France. But not, for example for distance sake, Saudi.
This may sound callous; it is not meant to be. Problems need solving, not crying over. Solutions take time; they're rarely solved with the easiest or most painless answer.
Isn't Turkey at risk of ISIS attacks?
Merkel's solution isn't perfect. But it will help the lives of many people. That is how, at least partly it does help.
Is it actually demonstrable fact that being tough on clandestine migration at the destination end has an effect on the numbers attempting the migration from the country of origin? I know Australia's experience is much vaunted by some on here, but did they really make the boat people simply not get on the boats just by tightening their own border. Or did they just reduce the numbers getting to Australia, because the clandestines just took a boat elsewhere or tried another route in? And was there any effect from political improvements in the source countries that contributed to Australia's success.
If Australia by being tough directly effected a humantarian solution to the number of boat people drowning, then that's good, but if they simply eliminated an immigration problem for Australia, and the boat people still drowned somewhere all the same, then David Cameron should be called for disingenuity in calling his stance humanitarian.
Some critical analysis of how well toughness has worked elsewhere would be appreciated, as well as some consideration of whether the EU's geography would allow an Australian approach to be attempted.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
I don't agree. I think these Syrian refugees want nothing more than a safe place to live, and will contribute to the countries that accept them. There's a difference between the mass immigration of economic migrants, and the immigration of genuine refugees.
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 did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum seekers already here.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum cases.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be enough. It would be a life saved.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
Merkel is offering a mop to clean up the bleeding - won't stop the problem - will probably make it work.
We need peace in Syria - what's Corbyns solution to that ?
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 did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum cases.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be enough. It would be a life saved.
Not particularly. There's no way ISIS is going to launch a serious assault on Turkey's borders. There might be terrorist plots - it's true there is a risk of being caught up in a bombing, for instance - but there's probably as much chance of getting caught up in a revolutionary communist or Kurdish blast there, as an ISIS one.
But then again, London must be quite a risky place to move to if you're worried about being caught up in that kind of thing. And the level of risk we are talking about here is far less than "risk of getting killed in traffic" - the kind of "acceptable" background risk in a peaceful society.
Is it actually demonstrable fact that being tough on clandestine migration at the destination end has an effect on the numbers attempting the migration from the country of origin? I know Australia's experience is much vaunted by some on here, but did they really make the boat people simply not get on the boats just by tightening their own border. Or did they just reduce the numbers getting to Australia, because the clandestines just took a boat elsewhere or tried another route in?
Policing the Med would be a very different challenge to what Australia faced so analogy can only take you so far. Australia is far more naturally sealed off than Greece, for instance.
Put portacabins that can house 10 people at each end of the 500 wealthiest streets in the UK (outside of London) and house 10,000 Syrian refugees there... The poorest in our own society don't deserve to wear the burden
Absolutely. I wouldn't say I'm a member of the elite; I'm not wealthy, but I'm Oxford educated working in a sector of the antiques trade dominated by well educated, mid-upper class white men. I live in Dorset. I will not be affected materially by immigration.
When it comes to policy I use the grandad test. I never knew him. He had a large family, lived on a council estate and had only his labour to sell. He died at 47 because he was sickly. He would not be able to compete in the labour force with mass, uncontrolled migration. That is surely what Merkel is signalling to the masses of the Mid East and Africa who are trying to get to Europe. It is a bad idea.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum cases.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be enough. It would be a life saved.
The harsh reality of the situation is that being on a long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a war-zone.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum cases.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be enough. It would be a life saved.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
I don't agree. I think these Syrian refugees want nothing more than a safe place to live, and will contribute to the countries that accept them. There's a difference between the mass immigration of economic migrants, and the immigration of genuine refugees.
Just as mass immigration from Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria, the North West Frontier, the Arabian Peninsula etc. has turned out well for European host nations. After all, they wanted nothing more than a safe place to live.
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.
Comments
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/government-could-still-face-defeat-on-eu-purdah-row/
He still wants taxpayer paid SPADs working on the campaign. It's infuriating that he is dragging his feet over having an honest debate on this.
As for Cameron, not accepting more refugees (which I am prepared to accept even if he is not, though how many is reasonable I do not know), will not in any way solve the problem that is causing the refugees, so while he could be attacked for being heartless if we wish, I don't see that it has anything to do with ideas on how to 'solve' the crisis. Particularly as has been pointed we are not doing nothing, we are just not currently on board with this latest plan which appears to have been drawn up on the back of a fag packet by Merkel without any consultation.
Putting our head in the sand won't solve the problem, that is true, if the problem is a rising tide, but nor will standing still and putting on some wellies - it might make us not feel the effects for a bit (in this torturous analogy, assuaging our consciences), but it won't do anything to fix the actual problem of getting out of the mess.
I don't have an answer to that problem, there probably isn't one, but ignoring what contributions we have made, which are apparently not inconsiderable, as though we ignoring any level of culpability when we are not, or accepting a greater moral or physical burden than is sustainable or even helpful to our own societies or those we wish to help, is not a solution either, and focusing on assistance closer to home and actions from those better able to assist, may well be more meaningful than some guilt ridden acceptance of an entirely arbitrary number of refugees to be accepted into Britain.
If we're concerned that thousands of people are drowning in unsafe boats, then it is possible the correct solution is not to encourage hundreds of thousands more people to take unsafe boats (ditto backs of lorries, undercarriages of planes...) in the hopes of reaching the Promised Land. The Australian approach is in some senses inhumane but has also prevented many deaths of vulnerable people - it's not obvious that the "ethical" choice is to tell people "keep coming; send us your fittest, your least risk-averse, your masses with a few grand spare to pay off the evil people smugglers". (An analogy: as a matter of principle, I take pains to remove or destroy a balloon or ball or some other toy I see in the middle of a busy road because I don't want kids to take risks trying to reach it. Somebody who places a toy in the middle of a busy road, then boasts of how much they love kids - look at how they donate toys to children! - is Doing It Wrong.) If we really want to help, there is a utilitarian argument for aiding people in situ - the money goes further that way - and if we do want to bring refugees here, carefully target those with war injuries or other disabilities or infirmities that leave them most vulnerable, rather than encourage precisely those people to flee to us who least need our assistance.
Paying for Spads doesn't seem like thumb on the scales to me.
We can certainly find space for refugees, and politically that can be sold to the public in the right circumstances even in these hostile to immigration times, but policy wise the system seems creaking at best, and if we accept housing more refugees, we need to make sure we do not pretend to ourselves that is usefully adding to a resolution to this mess. Useful for those individuals assisted, to be sure, but just as economic migrants are so often conflated with asylum seekers in this debate, so too are mitigation or cosmetic measures conflated with resolution measures, and the lack of the former as being the same as not addressing the latter.
Just the merest poke and it falls away from his utopian ideals as reality smashes into it.
I'm very proud that he has said what he has said. It is gutsy to take the unpopular, non-metropolitan elite position. He is growing in my estimation every day. Turning into a proper Tory one-nation leader.
Saluting someone for "doing something" when they are doing the wrong thing is very silly. David Cameron has been excellent on this. He is the only EU leader that understands simply accepting more migrants doesn't solve anything, as it merely increases the incentive to come, meaning more illegal dangerous crossings and more people dying.
What Cameron is doing is the right thing: focusing on the UN-backed fund to help Syria and to provide places of safety in the region. If we scale up that approach we stop anyone needing to make the trip, and they can also easily return to Syria to help rebuild the country once this dreadful war is over.
I think £3 sign-ups are more likely to be mobile / not open their post / lose their ballot paper / forget etc.
And with that I bid you all goodnight.
More significantly, though, papers have only one reason to be - to sell papers. The front page doesn't equal the editorial. They're more nuanced than that.
Since when should government policy be determined by Mail and Sun headlines?
A dog is for life, not just for Christmas. The same applies to dishing out free passes to fashionable migrants now. What happens when the next crisis pops up and next?
And given the level of aid we are apparently providing, I'm personally not particularly concerned if Cameron is not jumping on board with those nations who are helping less in the way we are, but are suggesting helping in another fashion. Our nations may well have different views on the best way each can contribute - not participating in the refugee issue does not mean we are not helping, which seems to be the implication here which I resent. It could well be argued that they are focusing on the superficial (if heartrending) aspects of the problem, people washing up on Europe's shores, rather than the actual problem. I won't condemn them for that, I'd be fine with Cameron participating on that basis too, but it's not inherently morally superior to focus on the symptom rather than the disease just because it's more obvious.
It may well be we can and should do both, but Merkel moaning about not taking in more refugees is not a solution to the underlying problem at all, it shouldn't be treated as such. Yes, it'll reduce one aspect of the problem, for a time at least, but that's not the same thing, and it's a legitimate view to say that and so refuse to be emotionally blackmailed.
Cameron's stance might well be wrong, time will tell, but he and we as a nation have not ignored the issue - they've just, so far, come to a differing conclusion, which is not the same thing.
So I think reasonable people may think the government is adopting the wrong strategy, but it would unfair to say they are not making their own attempts on this issue.
And if it looks like partisan-whining, and defending it probably is.
£3 ers will be more likely to be young, students, mobile, in rented accommodation, shared accommodation, moving frequently, away travelling, away on courses, much less organised etc etc.
Wars are bad - end of. We didn't start this one - the crazy followers of some sky fairy did.
I know it's anathema to the EU, but sometimes further talking will not add value to the process - either they convince him to cave now, or they need to move ahead with the plan sans UK, and find some way to make us pay for it later, rather than delay any good that might come from their plans by having a cathartic moan at Cameron.
You do realise that it is easy for Merkel to say what she is saying, right? A declining population needs filling.
Mass and uncontrolled immigration in this age can only end badly.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
He says treat problem at source, they presumably say that's great, but we've still got these refugees to deal with - again, what other options.
Please understand I'm not berating you about this, as I say I'm happy for us to take more refugees, but I don't see that the government's position is to be vilified as ignoring the wider issues, even if it could be called cold and heartless to the periphery if distressingly front and centre issue of the migration issue.
And no, I don't think it is easy at all to attempt to try and solve the biggest crisis to hit Europe since WW2, so kudos to Merkel for attempting to do that. And given that Merkel is looking for each country to take a share each (at what level a country can accept it), I'd hardly call it 'uncontrolled'.
I also note that the vast majority of the asylum seekers (I use the term carefully - not everyone claiming asylum will receive it) reaching Germany are not coming from Syria or other wartorn lands, while there are large numbers from the Balkans and peaceable parts of Africa. It is entirely possible for people's sympathy to be selective rather than extend to a blanket invitation. The present mess does a very poor job of targeting help at those people the public are most sympathetic to, so I'm not sure that simply upping the numbers is the kind of intervention the public are crying out for. I suspect if Cameron comes up with a face-saving intervention it will be more nuanced than Merkel's: my money would be on something that produces dramatic-looking news pictures, but less-dramatic - albeit more targeted - raw numbers.
1. Accept genuine refugees, 2. Turn back economic migrants, 3. Devote more resources to distinguishing between the two, 4. Bomb ISIS, 5. Suspend Schengen, 6 Send overseas aid to Libya and Syria to establish law & order.
It is pretty much what I would have thought the Sun would say.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
Good night all. To one tiny if emotive part of the problem, like scooping water from an overflowing bucket. Thank you Chancellor Merkel, that'll help a bit and I cannot ignore that, but please don't act like the you've stopped the flow into the bucket either, or that those not on water scooping duty who are ineffectively trying to prevent the flow are ignoring the issue.
PS If anyone is offended by my use of a 'flood' analogy in relation to refugees and migrants, please attribute it to the late hour.
On the other hand, refugees from Syria have a very strong case for asylum. But why is it they want to come to Western Europe so strongly? There's no doubt that the economics is a pull-factor. Somebody who's spent a few years living in Turkey or Lebanon, has settled there, maybe even studied or found a job, may still want to head west to Europe in search of a better life - they're not directly fleeing a warzone, but the reason they are displaced is ultimately a horrific conflict. Simply saying that person X is an economic migrant while in contradistinction person Y is a refugee is a binarist affectation. Albeit that is at least an improvement on painting all migration from poor/chaotic to rich/stable countries with the same brush.
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
As an aside, my stint as Guest editor begins in 12 hours time.
"Labour’s centrists have held up the white flag of surrender"
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2015/09/labours-centrists-hold-white-flag-surrender/
Attempts are meaningless. Results are what matter. Accepting migrants at the level Merkel has signalled will end with uncontrolled amounts. Demanding others follow suit will not work. How is telling people what to do solving the problem? How is encouraging large numbers to come to Europe going to stop people drowning in the Med. Would surely make it worse....
I'm still a bit flabbergasted why you wouldn't, if in a dire situation, especially with family, settle in Turkey.....
If I had to flea I'd try Wales/Ireland/Scotland in that order first, then maybe France. But not, for example for distance sake, Saudi.
This may sound callous; it is not meant to be. Problems need solving, not crying over. Solutions take time; they're rarely solved with the easiest or most painless answer.
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/639187471037763584
Merkel's solution isn't perfect. But it will help the lives of many people. That is how, at least partly it does help.
If Australia by being tough directly effected a humantarian solution to the number of boat people drowning, then that's good, but if they simply eliminated an immigration problem for Australia, and the boat people still drowned somewhere all the same, then David Cameron should be called for disingenuity in calling his stance humanitarian.
Some critical analysis of how well toughness has worked elsewhere would be appreciated, as well as some consideration of whether the EU's geography would allow an Australian approach to be attempted.
Sounds like psyops to me.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum seekers already here.
We need peace in Syria - what's Corbyns solution to that ?
But then again, London must be quite a risky place to move to if you're worried about being caught up in that kind of thing. And the level of risk we are talking about here is far less than "risk of getting killed in traffic" - the kind of "acceptable" background risk in a peaceful society. As I understand it it's the other way round: people weren't travelling thousands of miles by boat to reach Australia from far-flung countries. They were reaching Indonesia, generally not by boat at all, and then trying for the dangerous boat journey to Australia. Similar to how migrants from Afghanistan or West Africa try to get to Turkey/Libya before taking their chances on a boat for the final leg to Europe.
Policing the Med would be a very different challenge to what Australia faced so analogy can only take you so far. Australia is far more naturally sealed off than Greece, for instance.
When it comes to policy I use the grandad test. I never knew him. He had a large family, lived on a council estate and had only his labour to sell. He died at 47 because he was sickly. He would not be able to compete in the labour force with mass, uncontrolled migration. That is surely what Merkel is signalling to the masses of the Mid East and Africa who are trying to get to Europe. It is a bad idea.