The SNP government will be begging Westminster to put up that razor wire fence and Border posts..To stop desperate Scots from escaping..and it wont be the old,the young or Freedom nutters..it will be the bright,well educated young folk..They will be swimming across the Solway Firth in their thousands...and will be made very welcome.
I didn't know it was 'wnd-up malcG day'
That cretin could not wind me up , I feel sad for the lonely creep.
Mr. HYUFD, didn't realise Sanders was that leftwing.
Mr. Financier, I do wonder what people generally think. Media coverage appears to be generally sympathetic (there's been a petition to change the term from migrant to refugee, which appears to have at least partially been effective).
Mr. HYUFD, didn't realise Sanders was that leftwing.
Mr. Financier, I do wonder what people generally think. Media coverage appears to be generally sympathetic (there's been a petition to change the term from migrant to refugee, which appears to have at least partially been effective).
The pictures taken show a lot of healthy young men who it would be difficult to describe as refugees. I do not like using words for media political correctness - a refugee is a refugee and a migrant is a migrant and both are very different in meaning. To mix the two seems to be a political objective for the benefit of the petitioners and not for the benefit of the refugees.
Mr. HYUFD, didn't realise Sanders was that leftwing.
Mr. Financier, I do wonder what people generally think. Media coverage appears to be generally sympathetic (there's been a petition to change the term from migrant to refugee, which appears to have at least partially been effective).
Petitions can mean very little of course, but I do think the public are more sympathetic than the government position is. EU g, hence the media also being so. Nothing wrong with that, but it infuriates me to see the implication that the government disagreeing this is a good solution to the problem is the same as not doing anything or abrogating our national responsibilities, when it doesn't even pretend to address the problem of Syria - not that our efforts are helping much there either - just remove, for a Time, the most visible symptom of the problem without preventing reoccurrences.
If we did not agree to the plan, we have no obligation to assist and that still doesn't mean we can be accused of ignoring the problem, we just have been focusing on different parts of it. We can be accused of being heartless or a bad team player, but that is not the same as ignoring an obligation, legal, moral or otherwise, which does not exist.
Historical involvement in the region does not indefinitely bind us to accept non solutions designed to salve consciences only, even if morally it does mean we should continue to look where we can help. If we cave and decide to help in this fashion, ok, but Germany and others have no right to pretend unilateral decisions must be accepted by others after the fact and that we are morally bankrupt if we disagree.
1) The real humanitarian issue of people needing immediate help, and needing assistance now, wether in the EU or on the borders of the EU.
2) The medium/longer term issue of what is causing this.
Now, issue 1 needs dealing with, without a doubt, if people need help, and need saving then that should be provided without a question, and if that means increased immigration in the short term, so be it.
But without solving issue 2, issue 1 is unsolvable, it's a bottomless pit, Cameron is right that it will just create more and more pull factors to Europe and make the crisis worse and worse.
It needs something bigger and more permanent than just 'helping', otherwise this issue is going to grow and grow.
But we must have nothing but sympathy for these people.
It is so noticeable that all those on news programmers across the media who are wailing and criticising Cameron to do more, have not put forward one iota on how to solve the basic problem in both the short and longer term.
Perhaps they should be told to shut up before commenting more and try and use their brains - that is if they have any.
OK, let's say we go with the let 'em in brigade. We could probably house a million people in tent cities in London's royal parks. How would that do these people any good long term? There would be so many of them, they would stand very little chance of getting any work. They would be entirely dependent on hand outs. And a pound to a penny, it wouldn't take long for them to complain about the inadequacy of those hand outs. Which would further antagonise a reluctant population.
Sanitation wouldn't cope. We would potentially be importing a whole raft of health issues. Not to mention those who come from tropical or desert climates whose health struggles to cope with our cold, wet winter weather. You would have a mass of cultural clashes, unless you had strictly enforced barriers (Hyde Park for Shia, Green Park for Sunni, Azidis in Kensington Gardens..). Begging would be rife across the whole of the city. It would be materially less attractive as a tourist destination, especially after the first mugging of a tourist by a migrant got international news coverage. So tourism suffers, existing jobs get lost, resentment grows...
The hand-wringers may be very well intentioned Christian folk. But there seems to be no practicality to their position.
Comments
New Thread New Thread
If we did not agree to the plan, we have no obligation to assist and that still doesn't mean we can be accused of ignoring the problem, we just have been focusing on different parts of it. We can be accused of being heartless or a bad team player, but that is not the same as ignoring an obligation, legal, moral or otherwise, which does not exist.
Historical involvement in the region does not indefinitely bind us to accept non solutions designed to salve consciences only, even if morally it does mean we should continue to look where we can help. If we cave and decide to help in this fashion, ok, but Germany and others have no right to pretend unilateral decisions must be accepted by others after the fact and that we are morally bankrupt if we disagree.
1) The real humanitarian issue of people needing immediate help, and needing assistance now, wether in the EU or on the borders of the EU.
2) The medium/longer term issue of what is causing this.
Now, issue 1 needs dealing with, without a doubt, if people need help, and need saving then that should be provided without a question, and if that means increased immigration in the short term, so be it.
But without solving issue 2, issue 1 is unsolvable, it's a bottomless pit, Cameron is right that it will just create more and more pull factors to Europe and make the crisis worse and worse.
It needs something bigger and more permanent than just 'helping', otherwise this issue is going to grow and grow.
But we must have nothing but sympathy for these people.
Sanitation wouldn't cope. We would potentially be importing a whole raft of health issues. Not to mention those who come from tropical or desert climates whose health struggles to cope with our cold, wet winter weather. You would have a mass of cultural clashes, unless you had strictly enforced barriers (Hyde Park for Shia, Green Park for Sunni, Azidis in Kensington Gardens..). Begging would be rife across the whole of the city. It would be materially less attractive as a tourist destination, especially after the first mugging of a tourist by a migrant got international news coverage. So tourism suffers, existing jobs get lost, resentment grows...
The hand-wringers may be very well intentioned Christian folk. But there seems to be no practicality to their position.