I find many of the comments about the migration crisis difficult, bordering on the offensive. Whilst I can understand a reluctance to accept moral blackmail they show a lack of compassion and humanity.
There are no easy answers. We cannot have the populations of the world's many trouble spots come here en masse. I can see the argument that helping simply aggravates the problem because it makes the option of my hypothetical man in the refugee camp more attractive, the risk more worth taking. But when struggling with this we really should not let irritation or a sense of being bullied deprive us of humanity and compassion. These are human beings and we must not forget it.
Well said!
All this talk of returning refugees to their point of origin wilfully ignores the huge, huge numbers involved. Turkey has 1.8 Million refugees. How the fuck can you sit there and say that all the people gambling their lives to escape first a war zone, and then sprawling disease ridden camps are stupid/greedy economic migrants who should be sent straight back. 1.8 million people flooding a single country, and you expect to just sit and ignore the whole problem as not our responsibility.
So where do they go to?
And it's not our RESPONSIBILITY. We can choose to help. And we can choose where that help is given.
I spent months this year, on the streets of Torbay, listening to stories of hardship and difficulties in our existing housing and education and health system. How do we honestly say we are fighting for their quality of life, when untold millions are waiting to queue barge into those housing and education and health systems? We have to protect our own.
I was also fighting to win over those who thought that we should not commit a fixed % of our GDP to foreign aid. I was always happy to argue we are doing the right thing on this, even whilst many would slash it.
I think we have a fair balance between treating our own and those outside in less fortunate circumstances who would, given a slight break in our fences, pour through into our country. Our fragile systems would simply break. We have a duty to those 70 million who are already here not to let that happen.
I find many of the comments about the migration crisis difficult, bordering on the offensive. Whilst I can understand a reluctance to accept moral blackmail they show a lack of compassion and humanity.
We now face a huge humanitarian crisis. I don't believe for a moment that this is all the West's fault but it is not obvious we have helped either. That crisis involves the movement of millions of people who have fled in fear of their lives from psychopathic killers and lunatics.
They face an existence in camps in Turkey, Jordan, the Lebanon and elsewhere for years, possibly decades. It would be an existence with no jobs, little education, very poor accommodation entirely dependent on the world's somewhat fitful concentration span for the food that they eat.
If I and my family were in such a camp I would take any option to give them a better chance. This would undoubtedly involve dealing with cruel and heartless criminals because the Authorities give no options. It would involve taking risks because the alternative is so horrendous, risks I would not normally contemplate for a second. To call those who take these risks "stupid" or "greedy" is frankly shameful.
There are no easy answers. We cannot have the populations of the world's many trouble spots come here en masse. I can see the argument that helping simply aggravates the problem because it makes the option of my hypothetical man in the refugee camp more attractive, the risk more worth taking. But when struggling with this we really should not let irritation or a sense of being bullied deprive us of humanity and compassion. These are human beings and we must not forget it.
Hear, hear.
Thirded.
And again.
I wonder if the armchair 'I blame the parents' brigade thinks that the mothers & fathers of the hundreds, probably thousands, of children killed by bombs, bullets, gas etc are responsible for their deaths by sitting tight in Kobani, Aleppo, Palmyra or whichever other hell hole they're from originally.
I find many of the comments about the migration crisis difficult, bordering on the offensive. Whilst I can understand a reluctance to accept moral blackmail they show a lack of compassion and humanity.
We now face a huge humanitarian crisis. I don't believe for a moment that this is all the West's fault but it is not obvious we have helped either. That crisis involves the movement of millions of people who have fled in fear of their lives from psychopathic killers and lunatics.
They face an existence in camps in Turkey, Jordan, the Lebanon and elsewhere for years, possibly decades. It would be an existence with no jobs, little education, very poor accommodation entirely dependent on the world's somewhat fitful concentration span for the food that they eat.
If I and my family were in such a camp I would take any option to give them a better chance. This would undoubtedly involve dealing with cruel and heartless criminals because the Authorities give no options. It would involve taking risks because the alternative is so horrendous, risks I would not normally contemplate for a second. To call those who take these risks "stupid" or "greedy" is frankly shameful.
There are no easy answers. We cannot have the populations of the world's many trouble spots come here en masse. I can see the argument that helping simply aggravates the problem because it makes the option of my hypothetical man in the refugee camp more attractive, the risk more worth taking. But when struggling with this we really should not let irritation or a sense of being bullied deprive us of humanity and compassion. These are human beings and we must not forget it.
Hear, hear.
Thirded.
And again.
I wonder if the armchair 'I blame the parents' brigade thinks that the mothers & fathers of the hundreds, probably thousands, of children killed by bombs, bullets, gas etc are responsible for their deaths by sitting tight in Kobani, Aleppo, Palmyra or whichever other hell hole they're from originally.
And again. DavidL and you summed up my feelings so eloquently.
There were reports on Twitter earlier this week of some Corbyn backers switching to Burnham at the last minute. Corbyn remains favourite but could be pipped on preferences by Cooper or Burnham, more likely Burnham as yougov had Corbyn with a bigger lead over Cooper on preferences than Burnham
Depends on how the preferences fall. If Corybn backers switch to Burnham then they could still come back if Burham gets knocked out third.
Which would emphasise the point Corbyn is likely to beat Cooper in the final round but perhaps not Burnham
But Burnham won't reach the final round as Kendall will be eliminated first and her preferences will go to Cooper.
Yougov has had Burnham just ahead of Cooper still after redistribution of Kendall's preferences
Yougov has this leadership election being redundant as we have EICIPM.
I find many of the comments about the migration crisis difficult, bordering on the offensive. Whilst I can understand a reluctance to accept moral blackmail they show a lack of compassion and humanity.
There are no easy answers. We cannot have the populations of the world's many trouble spots come here en masse. I can see the argument that helping simply aggravates the problem because it makes the option of my hypothetical man in the refugee camp more attractive, the risk more worth taking. But when struggling with this we really should not let irritation or a sense of being bullied deprive us of humanity and compassion. These are human beings and we must not forget it.
Well said!
All this talk of returning refugees to their point of origin wilfully ignores the huge, huge numbers involved. Turkey has 1.8 Million refugees. How the fuck can you sit there and say that all the people gambling their lives to escape first a war zone, and then sprawling disease ridden camps are stupid/greedy economic migrants who should be sent straight back. 1.8 million people flooding a single country, and you expect to just sit and ignore the whole problem as not our responsibility.
So where do they go to?
And it's not our RESPONSIBILITY. We can choose to help. And we can choose where that help is given.
I spent months this year, on the streets of Torbay, listening to stories of hardship and difficulties in our existing housing and education and health system. How do we honestly say we are fighting for their quality of life, when untold millions are waiting to queue barge into those housing and education and health systems? We have to protect our own.
I was also fighting to win over those who thought that we should not commit a fixed % of our GDP to foreign aid. I was always happy to argue we are doing the right thing on this, even whilst many would slash it.
I think we have a fair balance between treating our own and those outside in less fortunate circumstances who would, given a slight break in our fences, pour through into our country. Our fragile systems would simply break. We have a duty to those 70 million who are already here not to let that happen.
There are 193 member countries of the UN.
When I say we, I mean we as fellow humans. The UN is the agency who should be dealing with this, and we as a member should take our share of the cost both in terms of accepting refugees within our borders and the cost of processing them at source in Turkey/Libia/Lebanon/Egypt etc.
Anything to delay publishing the AV masterpiece, I see....
Patience. I have another 17 days left as editor. Nothing much will happen in those 17 days so I'll definitely publish my AV magnum opus one of those days.
"There are no easy answers" because the questions are contradictory. This is now a test for politicians and statesmen.
Merkel has regrettably failed the test with her grandiose Einfühlungsvermögen (empathy). Cameron is at least addressing one of the proximate causes of the problem in a small but practical way that distinguishes refugees from migrants more generally.
Anything to delay publishing the AV masterpiece, I see....
Patience. I have another 17 days left as editor. Nothing much will happen in those 17 days so I'll definitely publish my AV magnum opus one of those days.
Nothing will happen in 8 days, that's for sure. So I think it'd make a good Saturday evening topic to while away the hours.
Britain and France should be drafting a UN security council resolution right now to lead an international response to the refugee crisis.
Time to put those much celebrated seats at the top-table to good use.
When it comes to Syria, Russia is the one that has to be squared.
Putin would probably want a free hand in Ukraine and the easing of sanctions in return.
Why would Putin want to help? The chaos spreading from the Med is all to his advantage. He'll sit tight.
Europe's political leaders have shown themselves to be soft, weak and largely incapable of dealing with this, and probably any crisis. In the event of an invasion, Merkel would sit frozen and blinking at her desk, whilst Russian soldiers marched straight into the German Chancellory, unchallenged.
On topic, the party wasn't geared up for the flood of participation and has clearly been struggling, but we're hearing about the exceptions rather than the rule. I only know of a single case personally (a £3er).
FWIW my punting advice is not to lay off on Corbyn bets. Do your own research, but IMO he's won, though not on the first ballot.
On refugees, DavidL speaks for me too. There's far too much whataboutery and thatwontreallysolveitery and itsthevictimsfaultinnitery going on when people are dying in large numbers. Sure, as I've been arguing for months, the EU should fund really well-run refugee camps along the Med (starting with the ones already there), move refugees there and then as a careful controlled process take in as many as we feel able to. I think we all more or less agree about that, apart from a few who think it's not a problem at all.
But right now the suffering is far too great to stand around pondering what we might do in a few months' time. By all means let's push for a medium-term solution, but right now let's take in a decent number ourselves - if Germany can take 800K and even Switzerland can take 25K, we should be able to manage 200K. Our current position as the odd one out with effing Orban is just embarrassing.
There were reports on Twitter earlier this week of some Corbyn backers switching to Burnham at the last minute. Corbyn remains favourite but could be pipped on preferences by Cooper or Burnham, more likely Burnham as yougov had Corbyn with a bigger lead over Cooper on preferences than Burnham
Depends on how the preferences fall. If Corybn backers switch to Burnham then they could still come back if Burham gets knocked out third.
Which would emphasise the point Corbyn is likely to beat Cooper in the final round but perhaps not Burnham
But Burnham won't reach the final round as Kendall will be eliminated first and her preferences will go to Cooper.
Yougov has had Burnham just ahead of Cooper still after redistribution of Kendall's preferences
But only just and that's before what must have been a net swing from Burnham to Cooper this last fortnight and also what ought to be a pretty big MoE on the poll given the difficulty in modelling the election, never mind pollsters' poor recent record at an election which should have been much more easily modelled.
O/T but would like advice from the PB Cognoscenti. I currently have Virgin Media to provide internet in the house. No phone line. The service is a bit patchy and download speeds a bit slow. Also coverage in the house is not always great. I live in North London so a bit odd. Should I upgrade. Are there better providers? What intelligent questions should I be asking the engineer?
DL..In your desperation to escape the war torn hell hole of Budrum, a popular Turkish holiday resort,would you load your young family,without life preservers, into an obviously unseaworthy rubber dinghy and set sail at night into a recently storm lashed sea..I doubt it...and yet that is what happened..in most peoples book.. it was extremely stupid I do think we should take in some refugees but we should be extremely selective..
Thats right. I mean I ask you Budrum. In this you are quite correct. But in this particular case it was worse because it was their second attempt - on the first attempt the boat sank as well. Two poor little children and their mother dead - victims of mass hysteria.
TUD I am as much a migrant as anyone who travels for work..I spend the majority of my time travelling ,mainly to the UK..where I also pay my taxes.license my vehicles and also insure them there...that sort of migrant. Now how many thousands did you order..
I find many of the comments about the migration crisis difficult, bordering on the offensive. Whilst I can understand a reluctance to accept moral blackmail they show a lack of compassion and humanity.
There are no easy answers. We cannot have the populations of the world's many trouble spots come here en masse. I can see the argument that helping simply aggravates the problem because it makes the option of my hypothetical man in the refugee camp more attractive, the risk more worth taking. But when struggling with this we really should not let irritation or a sense of being bullied deprive us of humanity and compassion. These are human beings and we must not forget it.
Well said!
All this talk of returning refugees to their point of origin wilfully ignores the huge, huge numbers involved. Turkey has 1.8 Million refugees. How the fuck can you sit there and say that all the people gambling their lives to escape first a war zone, and then sprawling disease ridden camps are stupid/greedy economic migrants who should be sent straight back. 1.8 million people flooding a single country, and you expect to just sit and ignore the whole problem as not our responsibility.
So where do they go to?
And it's not our RESPONSIBILITY. We can choose to help. And we can choose where that help is given.
I spent months this year, on the streets of Torbay, listening to stories of hardship and difficulties in our existing housing and education and health system. How do we honestly say we are fighting for their quality of life, when untold millions are waiting to queue barge into those housing and education and health systems? We have to protect our own.
I was also fighting to win over those who thought that we should not commit a fixed % of our GDP to foreign aid. I was always happy to argue we are doing the right thing on this, even whilst many would slash it.
I think we have a fair balance between treating our own and those outside in less fortunate circumstances who would, given a slight break in our fences, pour through into our country. Our fragile systems would simply break. We have a duty to those 70 million who are already here not to let that happen.
This.
We actually have no responsibility to anybody beyond our shores, however quite rightly most of us are quite prepared to do something to help if possible. But at the moment its a bit like people standing on a bridge watching somebody drowning and everybody screeching
Somebody do something.
The posturing of the likes of Cooper carrying a refugee placard in the leadership election I find particularly cynical.
By all means let's push for a medium-term solution, but right now let's take in a decent number ourselves - if Germany can take 800K and even Switzerland can take 25K, we should be able to manage 200K.
Ah, such largesse.
What do you say to the Broxtowe constituent who slides further down the housing list? Or are all refugees expected to go 'anywhere but Nottingham'.
Perhaps if your party hadn't allowed the UK to be flooded with economic migrants, the electorate would be more sympathetic to helping out those who now find themselves in genuine need.
I'm happy for Westminster to cede immigration & borders policy to Scotland, and for my government to act in accordance with its rhetoric.
Put up local taxes to pay for it...
Not for the first time you've not only put the cart before the horse, you've actually positioned it several miles up the road. Good that you support autonomy over borders & immigration for Holyrood though, perhaps your party will catch up eventually.
I find many of the comments about the migration crisis difficult, bordering on the offensive. Whilst I can understand a reluctance to accept moral blackmail they show a lack of compassion and humanity.
There are no easy answers. We cannot have the populations of the world's many trouble spots come here en masse. I can see the argument that helping simply aggravates the problem because it makes the option of my hypothetical man in the refugee camp more attractive, the risk more worth taking. But when struggling with this we really should not let irritation or a sense of being bullied deprive us of humanity and compassion. These are human beings and we must not forget it.
Well said!
All this talk of returning refugees to their point of origin wilfully ignores the huge, huge numbers involved. Turkey has 1.8 Million refugees. How the fuck can you sit there and say that all the people gambling their lives to escape first a war zone, and then sprawling disease ridden camps are stupid/greedy economic migrants who should be sent straight back. 1.8 million people flooding a single country, and you expect to just sit and ignore the whole problem as not our responsibility.
So where do they go to?
We have a duty to those 70 million who are already here not to let that happen.
There are 193 member countries of the UN.
When I say we, I mean we as fellow humans. The UN is the agency who should be dealing with this, and we as a member should take our share of the cost both in terms of accepting refugees within our borders and the cost of processing them at source in Turkey/Libia/Lebanon/Egypt etc.
We are currently making a contribution to these costs that puts many other countries to shame.
There is a worldwide problem. People have seen where the grass is greener, and aided by a vast criminal network, are prepared to travel to camp on it. But to listen to many on Twitter, you would think it was an issue we should be prepared to bear alone. That would cause huge difficulty to our own citizens - and is utterly wrong.
There is no hard-heartedness about saying they should not come here. In England we have one of the highest population densities in the world. There would be hard-heartedness in saying we will not help them in some other ways. We will assist with the cost of their relocation to Nebraska. Or British Colombia. Or the Massif Central.
O/T but would like advice from the PB Cognoscenti. I currently have Virgin Media to provide internet in the house. No phone line. The service is a bit patchy and download speeds a bit slow. Also coverage in the house is not always great. I live in North London so a bit odd. Should I upgrade. Are there better providers? What intelligent questions should I be asking the engineer?
as it will give you an idea of the performance of your connection relative to those around you who are with different providers.
Also worth checking with Virgin that your router has optimised the connection line as there are a few changes that can be made to improve signal quality.
TUD Can I do you a quite for the razor wire fence...for your new protected Border..I mean you don't want any of those terrible English Immigrants bursting over your orders..
I find many of the comments about the migration crisis difficult, bordering on the offensive. Whilst I can understand a reluctance to accept moral blackmail they show a lack of compassion and humanity.
There are no easy answers. We cannot have the populations of the world's many trouble spots come here en masse. I can see the argument that helping simply aggravates the problem because it makes the option of my hypothetical man in the refugee camp more attractive, the risk more worth taking. But when struggling with this we really should not let irritation or a sense of being bullied deprive us of humanity and compassion. These are human beings and we must not forget it.
Well said!
All this talk of returning refugees to their point of origin wilfully ignores the huge, huge numbers involved. Turkey has 1.8 Million refugees. How the fuck can you sit there and say that all the people gambling their lives to escape first a war zone, and then sprawling disease ridden camps are stupid/greedy economic migrants who should be sent straight back. 1.8 million people flooding a single country, and you expect to just sit and ignore the whole problem as not our responsibility.
So where do they go to?
We have a duty to those 70 million who are already here not to let that happen.
There are 193 member countries of the UN.
When I say we, I mean we as fellow humans. The UN is the agency who should be dealing with this, and we as a member should take our share of the cost both in terms of accepting refugees within our borders and the cost of processing them at source in Turkey/Libia/Lebanon/Egypt etc.
We are currently making a contribution to these costs that puts many other countries to shame.
There is a worldwide problem. People have seen where the grass is greener, and aided by a vast criminal network, are prepared to travel to camp on it. But to listen to many on Twitter, you would think it was an issue we should be prepared to bear alone. That would cause huge difficulty to our own citizens - and is utterly wrong.
There is no hard-heartedness about saying they should not come here. In England we have one of the highest population densities in the world. There would be hard-heartedness in saying we will not help them in some other ways. We will assist with the cost of their relocation to Nebraska. Or British Colombia. Or the Massif Central.
On topic, the party wasn't geared up for the flood of participation and has clearly been struggling, but we're hearing about the exceptions rather than the rule. I only know of a single case personally (a £3er).
FWIW my punting advice is not to lay off on Corbyn bets. Do your own research, but IMO he's won, though not on the first ballot.
On refugees, DavidL speaks for me too. There's far too much whataboutery and thatwontreallysolveitery and itsthevictimsfaultinnitery going on when people are dying in large numbers. Sure, as I've been arguing for months, the EU should fund really well-run refugee camps along the Med (starting with the ones already there), move refugees there and then as a careful controlled process take in as many as we feel able to. I think we all more or less agree about that, apart from a few who think it's not a problem at all.
But right now the suffering is far too great to stand around pondering what we might do in a few months' time. By all means let's push for a medium-term solution, but right now let's take in a decent number ourselves - if Germany can take 800K and even Switzerland can take 25K, we should be able to manage 200K. Our current position as the odd one out with effing Orban is just embarrassing.
Well Nick if you are recommending 200,000 refugees will you campaign to reduce by the same amount the number of immigrants moving from the EU into the UK. Seems a fair 'quid pro quo'
I find many of the comments about the migration crisis difficult, bordering on the offensive. Whilst I can understand a reluctance to accept moral blackmail they show a lack of compassion and humanity. These are human beings and we must not forget it.
Well said!
So where do they go to?
We have a duty to those 70 million who are already here not to let that happen.
There are 193 member countries of the UN.
When I say we, I mean we as fellow humans. The UN is the agency who should be dealing with this, and we as a member should take our share of the cost both in terms of accepting refugees within our borders and the cost of processing them at source in Turkey/Libia/Lebanon/Egypt etc.
We are currently making a contribution to these costs that puts many other countries to shame.
There is a worldwide problem. People have seen where the grass is greener, and aided by a vast criminal network, are prepared to travel to camp on it. But to listen to many on Twitter, you would think it was an issue we should be prepared to bear alone. That would cause huge difficulty to our own citizens - and is utterly wrong.
There is no hard-heartedness about saying they should not come here. In England we have one of the highest population densities in the world. There would be hard-heartedness in saying we will not help them in some other ways. We will assist with the cost of their relocation to Nebraska. Or British Colombia. Or the Massif Central.
You're happy with the UN's response so far then?
Huh? If the UN's response was anything like adequate, then there wouldn't be a problem for individual states to have to address.
Well put David, I fully agree with your general point and our need to maintain our compassion and humanity.
I would be interested to know what the conditions in the refugee camps around Syria are like and whether they are being properly funded, especially since the Syrian Civil War doesn't look like ending anytime soon. If I was stuck in one of these camps for several years, most alternatives would look good.
According to the Guardian, the family of the two boys who drowned had actually been living in Istanbul for the last three years in apartment paid for by the Canadian sister, and the father had a work permit. It would be useful to know what the thought process was in their decision to leave Turkey since it might help us formulate a better response.
I find many of the comments about the migration crisis difficult, bordering on the offensive. Whilst I can understand a reluctance to accept moral blackmail they show a lack of compassion and humanity.
We now face a huge humanitarian crisis. I don't believe for a moment that this is all the West's fault but it is not obvious we have helped either. That crisis involves the movement of millions of people who have fled in fear of their lives from psychopathic killers and lunatics.
They face an existence in camps in Turkey, Jordan, the Lebanon and elsewhere for years, possibly decades. It would be an existence with no jobs, little education, very poor accommodation entirely dependent on the world's somewhat fitful concentration span for the food that they eat.
If I and my family were in such a camp I would take any option to give them a better chance. This would undoubtedly involve dealing with cruel and heartless criminals because the Authorities give no options. It would involve taking risks because the alternative is so horrendous, risks I would not normally contemplate for a second. To call those who take these risks "stupid" or "greedy" is frankly shameful.
There are no easy answers. We cannot have the populations of the world's many trouble spots come here en masse. I can see the argument that helping simply aggravates the problem because it makes the option of my hypothetical man in the refugee camp more attractive, the risk more worth taking. But when struggling with this we really should not let irritation or a sense of being bullied deprive us of humanity and compassion. These are human beings and we must not forget it.
Sorry if this isn't news but just read Britain to take more refugees from UN refugee camps bordering Syria not from those who've made it to Europe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34148913
Very good decision by David Cameron to take that I hope almost everyone here would support. Legalised migration of genuine refugees rather than those who've paid people smugglers. Cut out the middle men and deal with the problem directly. The solution to this crisis isn't a free-for-all where the first to make it to Europe (a survival of the fittest) are allowed in, but to come up with a real solution at the point of origin.
I've been saying this for a while now. We need a real multilateral solution at source. The boy died not because his father was stupid/greedy, but because the UN's response to the growing humanitarian crisis since 2011 has been pitiful.
I hope that we give priority to those who really do face genocide and persecution in the Middle East: Arab Christians and Yazidis (as I have been saying for a while).
It would be nice if these groups could survive in their homelands but the chances - at present - are poor so we should give these people refuge as a priority.
I would also add - and have been saying this too for a while - that the response of the rich countries in the Middle East has been pitiful. There does not appear to be any solidarity in the Muslim world or indeed much concept of charity when rich countries such as Qatar, the UAE, SA etc do nothing to help those displaced by war or indeed those countries which are bearing the burden: Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. It is shameful.
Cooper said last night councils had been contacted asked to come forward to say what they're prepared to do, another cop out. Speaking of my local council, with a housing shortage, I'm sure the leader can't wait to announce he's going to house 10 families from overseas.
200,000 people ..most with language problems.many with health problems.. a diversity of religious groupings .that quite often do not get on well together..That represents a very large town or city..to be built where, one wonders..
By all means let's push for a medium-term solution, but right now let's take in a decent number ourselves - if Germany can take 800K and even Switzerland can take 25K, we should be able to manage 200K.
Ah, such largesse.
What do you say to the Broxtowe constituent who slides further down the housing list? Or are all refugees expected to go 'anywhere but Nottingham'.
Perhaps if your party hadn't allowed the UK to be flooded with economic migrants, the electorate would be more sympathetic to helping out those who now find themselves in genuine need.
I am surprised anyone would take seriously advice from a party who embarked on uncontrolled immigration to rub the Right's nose in diversity.
I find many of the comments about the migration crisis difficult, bordering on the offensive. Whilst I can understand a reluctance to accept moral blackmail they show a lack of compassion and humanity. These are human beings and we must not forget it.
Well said!
So where do they go to?
We have a duty to those 70 million who are already here not to let that happen.
There are 193 member countries of the UN.
When I say we, I mean we as fellow humans. The UN is the agency who should be dealing with this, and we as a member should take our share of the cost both in terms of accepting refugees within our borders and the cost of processing them at source in Turkey/Libia/Lebanon/Egypt etc.
We are currently making a contribution to these costs that puts many other countries to shame.
There is a worldwide problem. People have seen where the grass is greener, and aided by a vast criminal network, are prepared to travel to camp on it. But to listen to many on Twitter, you would think it was an issue we should be prepared to bear alone. That would cause huge difficulty to our own citizens - and is utterly wrong.
There is no hard-heartedness about saying they should not come here. In England we have one of the highest population densities in the world. There would be hard-heartedness in saying we will not help them in some other ways. We will assist with the cost of their relocation to Nebraska. Or British Colombia. Or the Massif Central.
You're happy with the UN's response so far then?
Huh?
The post you were replying to was about the pitiful nature of the UN's response to the crisis. I did not say we should shoulder the burden alone, but take some responsibility collectively.
Your post seems to be either shrugging your shoulders and saying we already do our fair share.
'There does not appear to be any solidarity in the Muslim world or indeed much concept of charity when rich countries such as Qatar, the UAE, SA etc do nothing to help those displaced by war or indeed those countries which are bearing the burden: Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. It is shameful. '
Well these countries are not as pathetically sentimental as we are and have a keen eye to their own interests including not destabilising the balance of their populations. Those with long memories may remember what happened to Jordan after it accepted huge numbers of Palestinian refugees...
The National Audit Office reported in March 2012 that 159,000 people could be subject to removal for overstaying or otherwise violating conditions of their stay. It is not known how many of these are students.
Some of these will be intercompany transfers, people heading into high paying jobs etc. But I can't believe they all are and the Migration observatory article backs up that there are alot of people that shouldn't be here.
Whilst we're in the EU, EU migration obviously we have no control over - that's a seperate issue... but the net non EU migration number looks... high to me.
Finally voted in the Labour leadership election. YC seemed to break out the pack in the last few days and got the nod. SC for deputy.
I am delighted. Not only have I backed her (did I mention that?) but if she does become LotO there will be a perception that it's more of the same plus is Mr Cooper running the show and he's hardly Claire Underwood = same old (New) Lab = no clean break = 2020 loss.
More generally, the people of a country are normally better off with a repressive (provided not manically so) regime than a civil war.
Much of Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam have lived under repressive regimes. Eventually, all these regimes either crumbled or softened. Most of the citizens of those countries now lead very productive and rewarding lives even if (in the case of Vietnam or China) the Government has very unattractive aspects.
A civil war -- especially a prolonged one in which the two sides are evenly balanced -- causes way more suffering & damage than a repressive regime.
It was wrong to encourage regime change in the first place.
The best thing for Syria now is a reasonably functioning Government. That de facto probably means supporting Assad and the Russians to establish law and order.
The worst thing is to prolong the civil war by bombing or intervening militarily.
I find many of the comments about the migration crisis difficult, bordering on the offensive. Whilst I can understand a reluctance to accept moral blackmail they show a lack of compassion and humanity. These are human beings and we must not forget it.
Well said!
So where do they go to?
We have a duty to those 70 million who are already here not to let that happen.
There are 193 member countries of the UN.
When I say we, I mean we as fellow humans. The UN is the agency who should be dealing with this, and we as a member should take our share of the cost both in terms of accepting refugees within our borders and the cost of processing them at source in Turkey/Libia/Lebanon/Egypt etc.
We are currently making a contribution to these costs that puts many other countries to shame.
There is a worldwide problem. People have seen where the grass is greener, and aided by a vast criminal network, are prepared to travel to camp on it. But to listen to many on Twitter, you would think it was an issue we should be prepared to bear alone. That would cause huge difficulty to our own citizens - and is utterly wrong.
There is no hard-heartedness about saying they should not come here. In England we have one of the highest population densities in the world. There would be hard-heartedness in saying we will not help them in some other ways. We will assist with the cost of their relocation to Nebraska. Or British Colombia. Or the Massif Central.
You're happy with the UN's response so far then?
Huh?
The post you were replying to was about the pitiful nature of the UN's response to the crisis. I did not say we should shoulder the burden alone, but take some responsibility collectively.
Your post seems to be either shrugging your shoulders and saying we already do our fair share.
So are you happy with the UN's response or not?
The UN has no role in enforcing national border controls, which is what this is about. And when Germany decides to say, come on in, then that undermines any effort the UN might make in opening camps proximate to the war zones people are being displaced from.
I don't see what role there is for the UN to stop economic migrants from Congo or Senegal or Somalia or Afghanistan - who are selfishly using the chaos caused by conflict in Syria as an opportunity to bust through borders.
Sorry if this isn't news but just read Britain to take more refugees from UN refugee camps bordering Syria not from those who've made it to Europe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34148913
Very good decision by David Cameron to take that I hope almost everyone here would support. Legalised migration of genuine refugees rather than those who've paid people smugglers. Cut out the middle men and deal with the problem directly. The solution to this crisis isn't a free-for-all where the first to make it to Europe (a survival of the fittest) are allowed in, but to come up with a real solution at the point of origin.
I've been saying this for a while now. We need a real multilateral solution at source. The boy died not because his father was stupid/greedy, but because the UN's response to the growing humanitarian crisis since 2011 has been pitiful.
I hope that we give priority to those who really do face genocide and persecution in the Middle East: Arab Christians and Yazidis (as I have been saying for a while).
It would be nice if these groups could survive in their homelands but the chances - at present - are poor so we should give these people refuge as a priority.
I would also add - and have been saying this too for a while - that the response of the rich countries in the Middle East has been pitiful. There does not appear to be any solidarity in the Muslim world or indeed much concept of charity when rich countries such as Qatar, the UAE, SA etc do nothing to help those displaced by war or indeed those countries which are bearing the burden: Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. It is shameful.
Seconded. Very well said, and my thoughts exactly.
By all means let's push for a medium-term solution, but right now let's take in a decent number ourselves - if Germany can take 800K and even Switzerland can take 25K, we should be able to manage 200K.
Ah, such largesse.
What do you say to the Broxtowe constituent who slides further down the housing list? Or are all refugees expected to go 'anywhere but Nottingham'.
Perhaps if your party hadn't allowed the UK to be flooded with economic migrants, the electorate would be more sympathetic to helping out those who now find themselves in genuine need.
I am surprised anyone would take seriously advice from a party who embarked on uncontrolled immigration to rub the Right's nose in diversity.
I am so very glad Nick wasn't returned to parliament. By all accounts I hope he is too, as he seems to be having much more fun now, and I am (sincerely) pleased for him that that's the case.
Cooper said last night councils had been contacted asked to come forward to say what they're prepared to do, another cop out. Speaking of my local council, with a housing shortage, I'm sure the leader can't wait to announce he's going to house 10 families from overseas.
Words are cheap Cooper
On the three biggest issues of concern to floating voters - the economy, welfare and immigration - Labour have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.
They are now about to try the 'don't like egg and chips? Ok, how about triple eggs and triple chips?' approach to the rest of this parliament.
England and Scotland didn't agree on much at the GE. But the common thread of 'Not Labour' is being proved correct as they seem incapable of running a bath right now, let alone their own party or god forbid the country.
Cooper said last night councils had been contacted asked to come forward to say what they're prepared to do, another cop out. Speaking of my local council, with a housing shortage, I'm sure the leader can't wait to announce he's going to house 10 families from overseas.
Words are cheap Cooper
How many Labour controlled councils have rallied to your flag Yvette? Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds, all those London boroughs. How many have they pledged to take?
England and Scotland didn't agree on much at the GE. But the common thread of 'Not Labour' is being proved correct as they seem incapable of running a bath right now, let alone their own party or god forbid the country.
After this farce its even possible that Wales could join the "not Labour" camp and London could remain in it. The last of Labour's "permanent fiefdoms" could fall.
Sorry if this isn't news but just read Britain to take more refugees from UN refugee camps bordering Syria not from those who've made it to Europe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34148913
Very good decision by David Cameron to take that I hope almost everyone here would support. Legalised migration of genuine refugees rather than those who've paid people smugglers. [SFS]
I hope that we give priority to those who really do face genocide and persecution in the Middle East: Arab Christians and Yazidis (as I have been saying for a while).
It would be nice if these groups could survive in their homelands but the chances - at present - are poor so we should give these people refuge as a priority.
I would also add - and have been saying this too for a while - that the response of the rich countries in the Middle East has been pitiful. There does not appear to be any solidarity in the Muslim world or indeed much concept of charity when rich countries such as Qatar, the UAE, SA etc do nothing to help those displaced by war or indeed those countries which are bearing the burden: Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. It is shameful.
Cooper said last night councils had been contacted asked to come forward to say what they're prepared to do, another cop out. Speaking of my local council, with a housing shortage, I'm sure the leader can't wait to announce he's going to house 10 families from overseas.
Words are cheap Cooper
How many Labour controlled councils have rallied to your flag Yvette? Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds, all those London boroughs. How many have they pledged to take?
My local (Labour-ran) council has apparently volunteered to take on 10 families in response to Yvette's call. This strikes me more as tokenism than a serious solution.
For some time I've had a feeling that it might have been best for Labour not to do any vetting. The MPs made a big mistake in getting Corbyn past their threshold, and everything the party has done since then has compounded that mistake.
Now, whoever wins, there could well be vocal complaints (perhaps justifiably) - the process has been hideously mishandled. If the result is close, these complaints will get even more vocal.
If they had done no vetting, it would have saved them a great deal of pain and disharmony. After all, neither Harman or anyone else mentioned vetting until after Corbyn was selected.
Cooper said last night councils had been contacted asked to come forward to say what they're prepared to do, another cop out. Speaking of my local council, with a housing shortage, I'm sure the leader can't wait to announce he's going to house 10 families from overseas.
Words are cheap Cooper
How many Labour controlled councils have rallied to your flag Yvette? Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds, all those London boroughs. How many have they pledged to take?
My local (Labour-ran) council has apparently volunteered to take on 10 families in response to Yvette's call. This strikes me more as tokenism than a serious solution.
My council is the nearest to Calais, if they were to announce they were taking in Syrians the whole lot would have to go into hiding. That's unpalatable to some and not my way of thinking but its true nonetheless.
PT Care to let us know which council that is and do you have any numbers for the waiting list.. were the people on the list consulted.
Warrington Borough Council.
As for the waiting list, I don't have those figures. I highly doubt that they were consulted but nor do I see that as relevant, people jump waiting lists all the time. I know of people who have become pregnant in order to jump up the list, does that require consulting everyone else on the list first?
England and Scotland didn't agree on much at the GE. But the common thread of 'Not Labour' is being proved correct as they seem incapable of running a bath right now, let alone their own party or god forbid the country.
After this farce its even possible that Wales could join the "not Labour" camp and London could remain in it. The last of Labour's "permanent fiefdoms" could fall.
Being in Wales this rather interests me... Labour were higher there in 2011 than in 2007. I cant see them moving higher again. I would expect UKIP to start picking up a couple of list seats at their expense especially from the UK patriot elders. Plaid may struggle if corbyn is around, and the LDs will be probably squeezed further too. But hard to call at present.
Here is an article from the local Warrington Guardian on the (Labour) Council 'responding positively' to Labour's Yvette Cooper with Labour's Helen Jones (MP for Warrington North) also name-checked.
Whatever Nick P may think, I don't mind the UK being in the same camp as Victor Orban.
By all means, take in several thousand from refugee camps, but not 200,000. We aren't in a bidding war with Germany and Sweden.
I'll take more notice of politicians like Cooper when they practice what they preach. She is rich by the standards of many, and has at least 2 homes. Has she taken the lead and made one of them available to someone less fortunate than herself? No. As always, someone else i.e us, is expected to pay.
Whatever Nick P may think, I don't mind the UK being in the same camp as Victor Orban.
By all means, take in several thousand from refugee camps, but not 200,000. We aren't in a bidding war with Germany and Sweden.
I'll take more notice of politicians like Cooper when they practice what they preach. She has at least 2 homes, one of them funded by the taxpayer. Why hasn't she take the lead and made one of them available to someone less fortunate than herself?
Cooper said last night councils had been contacted asked to come forward to say what they're prepared to do, another cop out. Speaking of my local council, with a housing shortage, I'm sure the leader can't wait to announce he's going to house 10 families from overseas.
Words are cheap Cooper
How many Labour controlled councils have rallied to your flag Yvette? Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds, all those London boroughs. How many have they pledged to take?
My local (Labour-ran) council has apparently volunteered to take on 10 families in response to Yvette's call. This strikes me more as tokenism than a serious solution.
Liverpool has offered 100, provided central government help.
PT Young girls have always used pregnancy to jump the housing queue..It is relevant to consult those that are now going to be displaced.It would be a proper way to conduct the business of Warrington to have done a quick survey among those on that list...but maybe that's Labours way.. I hope they have large majorities come the next local election.
Whatever Nick P may think, I don't mind the UK being in the same camp as Victor Orban.
By all means, take in several thousand from refugee camps, but not 200,000. We aren't in a bidding war with Germany and Sweden.
I'll take more notice of politicians like Cooper when they practice what they preach. She has at least 2 homes, one of them funded by the taxpayer. Why hasn't she take the lead and made one of them available to someone less fortunate than herself?
Dave agrees with Yvette
He can put a few up in that lovely house in Chipping Norton. His Father in Law has space for thousands. Perhaps they'll exchange words over lunch at the weekend?
PT Young girls have always used pregnancy to jump the housing queue..It is relevant to consult those that are now going to be displaced.It would be a proper way to conduct the business of Warrington to have done a quick survey among those on that list...but maybe that's Labours way.. I hope they have large majorities come the next local election.
Is it your policy that each and every decision any government ever does can only be done after surveying all of those affected?
Seems like it runs counter to the very notion of representative democracy and would be an incredibly expensive and bureaucratic nightmare. Or are you only wanting that done in this instance?
England and Scotland didn't agree on much at the GE. But the common thread of 'Not Labour' is being proved correct as they seem incapable of running a bath right now, let alone their own party or god forbid the country.
After this farce its even possible that Wales could join the "not Labour" camp and London could remain in it. The last of Labour's "permanent fiefdoms" could fall.
Wales has been trending away from Labour for some time now, much as London has been trending towards it. Perhaps even more interestingly, it's not just been trending away from Labour but - unlike Scotland - it's been trending rightwards, with UKIP and the Tories being the main beneficiaries rather than Plaid, the Greens or Lib Dems.
PT If there are so few on Warringtons housing list that they can provide ten homes then it would have taken a short while to to do a quick survey of waiting tenants..
Here is an article from the local Warrington Guardian on the (Labour) Council 'responding positively' to Labour's Yvette Cooper with Labour's Helen Jones (MP for Warrington North) also name-checked.
PT If there are so few on Warringtons housing list that they can provide ten homes then it would have taken a short while to to do a quick survey of waiting tenants..
Or potentially there are so many that 10 is a rounding error. Either way we have representative democracy not survey democracy, do you want surveys before every decision or just this one?
'There does not appear to be any solidarity in the Muslim world or indeed much concept of charity when rich countries such as Qatar, the UAE, SA etc do nothing to help those displaced by war or indeed those countries which are bearing the burden: Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. It is shameful. '
Well these countries are not as pathetically sentimental as we are and have a keen eye to their own interests including not destabilising the balance of their populations. Those with long memories may remember what happened to Jordan after it accepted huge numbers of Palestinian refugees...
Well, quite. And what happened to Lebanon.
But if there is an issue of destabilisation then there is even more of a question of why it should be our societies which should be destabilised. Or be at risk of it. (The Palestinians are I think a special case since the Arab world largely turned its back on them and the Palestinians refused to integrate in any way in any society in which they found refuge as a group.)
And that question is not being addressed by all those European politicians so keen to be seen to be doing something. I will repeat what I said before: the history of large scale Muslim immigration into Europe has not been such a roaring success that we can simply do more of the same at a time when many of those migrants will be coming from a war zone in an area ridden with extremism and violence and at a time when extremist ideology has a hold amongst some in the population.
The question of who should come, how many and how they can and will be successfully and lastingly integrated is a key one which needs to be addressed before we invite more in and not after when we are wondering why we have problems and scratching our heads at what to do.
PT Some decisions are infinitely more important than others.. this is one of them.. How nice of you to call overcrowded families rounding errors..The housing department should have an absolutely accurate number of tenants waiting.
Whatever Nick P may think, I don't mind the UK being in the same camp as Victor Orban.
By all means, take in several thousand from refugee camps, but not 200,000. We aren't in a bidding war with Germany and Sweden.
I'll take more notice of politicians like Cooper when they practice what they preach. She has at least 2 homes, one of them funded by the taxpayer. Why hasn't she take the lead and made one of them available to someone less fortunate than herself?
Dave agrees with Yvette
He can put a few up in that lovely house in Chipping Norton. His Father in Law has space for thousands. Perhaps they'll exchange words over lunch at the weekend?
PT Some decisions are infinitely more important than others.. this is one of them.. How nice of you to call overcrowded families rounding errors..The housing department should have an absolutely accurate number of tenants waiting.
I didn't say that, I said that was a possibility. I said I don't know the figures, I don't work for the Council - I didn't vote for this Council and I don't agree with this tokenism. But I think bureaucratic nightmare suggestions like yours is Brown-style job creating nonsense. The government should do what it thinks is right and the public should judge the government in the subsequent election - rather than creating jobs for pen pushing bureaucrats surveying everyone for every decision the government should use the money to actually solve problems.
How good of you to suggest on behalf of overcrowded families that the government should waste the housing department's tax-payers money on opinion polls before each and every decision they make rather than spend it on housing.
A massive guiltfest in the media..I wonder when the father of the two children will realise that they died because of his gross stupidity....If a British father had set sail to cross over to France in a leaky rubber dinghy and the children had drowned then daddy would have been arrested and charged with willful negligence. They were escaping from a Turkish holiday resort where thousands of Brits are on holiday..Not a effin war zone.
But none of that matters. The photo was perfectly framed and shot, and the subject content and scenic context near perfect for a dramatic image. It is extremely powerful for that. It led to a visceral gut reaction in millions of people. That will change government policy in several countries - including ours. It will probably go down in history as being as famous at that saigon execution photo taken during the Vietnam war.
Individually tragic though it was (and is) it just goes to show, to me at least, how tremendously illogical human beings are, and therefore our politics too.
The parents may have been stupid. But they were probably desperate or just longing for a better life. These are not bad things to be. And desperate people do silly things.
They were children. The father has suffered a terrible loss, no doubt made worse by the realisation of his own role in it. There is no need for anyone to kick a man when he is down. We can all mourn unknown children, grieving parents and feel and say that the world should not be like this, that common humanity requires us to do what we can to help. One does not walk on the other side when one sees someone suffering.
And when we've done that we think hard about what practical steps can be done and by whom which will reduce the risk of such tragedies.
The argument is about that not about who feels the most. And I resent the way that it is being framed as this in order to avoid the hard thinking which needs to be done. This will only result in bad policy, resentment, more tragedy and unintended outcomes.
"The argument is about that not about who feels the most. And I resent the way that it is being framed as this in order to avoid the hard thinking which needs to be done. This will only result in bad policy, resentment, more tragedy and unintended outcomes."
I find many of the comments about the migration crisis difficult, bordering on the offensive. Whilst I can understand a reluctance to accept moral blackmail they show a lack of compassion and humanity.
We now face a huge humanitarian crisis. I don't believe for a moment that this is all the West's fault but it is not obvious we have helped either. That crisis involves the movement of millions of people who have fled in fear of their lives from psychopathic killers and lunatics.
They face an existence in camps in Turkey, Jordan, the Lebanon and elsewhere for years, possibly decades. It would be an existence with no jobs, little education, very poor accommodation entirely dependent on the world's somewhat fitful concentration span for the food that they eat.
If I and my family were in such a camp I would take any option to give them a better chance. This would undoubtedly involve dealing with cruel and heartless criminals because the Authorities give no options. It would involve taking risks because the alternative is so horrendous, risks I would not normally contemplate for a second. To call those who take these risks "stupid" or "greedy" is frankly shameful.
There are no easy answers. We cannot have the populations of the world's many trouble spots come here en masse. I can see the argument that helping simply aggravates the problem because it makes the option of my hypothetical man in the refugee camp more attractive, the risk more worth taking. But when struggling with this we really should not let irritation or a sense of being bullied deprive us of humanity and compassion. These are human beings and we must not forget it.
However, such legal niceties look like being overwhelmed by political realities. David Cameron is under intense pressure to agree a number to show that he cares, whatever the practical consequences may be. He is being unfairly traduced for resisting these blandishments and there is something deeply unpleasant about the picture of a dead child being used as a stick with which to beat a political opponent. The Prime Minister is as moved as anyone by the sight of a dead child; but he is right to say that it is better to help the refugees remain in situ, in camps in countries bordering Syria, in the expectation of one day returning home.
"The argument is about that not about who feels the most. And I resent the way that it is being framed as this in order to avoid the hard thinking which needs to be done. This will only result in bad policy, resentment, more tragedy and unintended outcomes."
PT If there are so few on Warringtons housing list that they can provide ten homes then it would have taken a short while to to do a quick survey of waiting tenants..
Or potentially there are so many that 10 is a rounding error. Either way we have representative democracy not survey democracy, do you want surveys before every decision or just this one?
Quite correct about the survey (and the polling) democracy. And the twitter democracy. And others. Whatever the crisis of the moment the govt has to get on and 'do it'.
The issue around helping these people is that they are best served by being properly looked after near their own country, with arguably some people being granted asylum elsewhere - orphans the sick and the otherwise needy. These people belong back in their own country when it is safe. This is not a cheap option, because they need to be kept safe and healthy and happy. Although how they could be kept in some sort of constructive frame of mind I don't know. The most dangerous thing for them is to encourage the idea that they can easily travel on. Plus if these migrants/ refugees/ asylum seekers are dissipated throughout Europe - they will never return and millions more will be encouraged to leave with the inevitable hysteria and dangers involved in that. From the UK point of view the scenes in Calais are a good pointer to what would happen. The Schengen open borders policy was always a hostage to fortune and in the current situation of mass movement s of people it is clearly broken.
A massive guiltfest in the media..I wonder when the father of the two children will realise that they died because of his gross stupidity....If a British father had set sail to cross over to France in a leaky rubber dinghy and the children had drowned then daddy would have been arrested and charged with willful negligence. They were escaping from a Turkish holiday resort where thousands of Brits are on holiday..Not a effin war zone.
But none of that matters. The photo was perfectly framed and shot, and the subject content and scenic context near perfect for a dramatic image. It is extremely powerful for that. It led to a visceral gut reaction in millions of people. That will change government policy in several countries - including ours. It will probably go down in history as being as famous at that saigon execution photo taken during the Vietnam war.
Individually tragic though it was (and is) it just goes to show, to me at least, how tremendously illogical human beings are, and therefore our politics too.
The parents may have been stupid. But they were probably desperate or just longing for a better life. These are not bad things to be. And desperate people do silly things.
They were children. The father has suffered a terrible loss, no doubt made worse by the realisation of his own role in it. There is no need for anyone to kick a man when he is down. We can all mourn unknown children, grieving parents and feel and say that the world should not be like this, that common humanity requires us to do what we can to help. One does not walk on the other side when one sees someone suffering.
And when we've done that we think hard about what practical steps can be done and by whom which will reduce the risk of such tragedies.
The argument is about that not about who feels the most. And I resent the way that it is being framed as this in order to avoid the hard thinking which needs to be done. This will only result in bad policy, resentment, more tragedy and unintended outcomes.
You're preaching to the converted - I need no convincing of that.
O/T but would like advice from the PB Cognoscenti. I currently have Virgin Media to provide internet in the house. No phone line. The service is a bit patchy and download speeds a bit slow. Also coverage in the house is not always great. I live in North London so a bit odd. Should I upgrade. Are there better providers? What intelligent questions should I be asking the engineer?
as it will give you an idea of the performance of your connection relative to those around you who are with different providers.
Also worth checking with Virgin that your router has optimised the connection line as there are a few changes that can be made to improve signal quality.
Cooper said last night councils had been contacted asked to come forward to say what they're prepared to do, another cop out. Speaking of my local council, with a housing shortage, I'm sure the leader can't wait to announce he's going to house 10 families from overseas.
Words are cheap Cooper
How many Labour controlled councils have rallied to your flag Yvette? Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds, all those London boroughs. How many have they pledged to take?
I find Coopers attempts to win leadership votes over this disgusting
Comments
And it's not our RESPONSIBILITY. We can choose to help. And we can choose where that help is given.
I spent months this year, on the streets of Torbay, listening to stories of hardship and difficulties in our existing housing and education and health system. How do we honestly say we are fighting for their quality of life, when untold millions are waiting to queue barge into those housing and education and health systems? We have to protect our own.
I was also fighting to win over those who thought that we should not commit a fixed % of our GDP to foreign aid. I was always happy to argue we are doing the right thing on this, even whilst many would slash it.
I think we have a fair balance between treating our own and those outside in less fortunate circumstances who would, given a slight break in our fences, pour through into our country. Our fragile systems would simply break. We have a duty to those 70 million who are already here not to let that happen.
I wonder if the armchair 'I blame the parents' brigade thinks that the mothers & fathers of the hundreds, probably thousands, of children killed by bombs, bullets, gas etc are responsible for their deaths by sitting tight in Kobani, Aleppo, Palmyra or whichever other hell hole they're from originally.
When I say we, I mean we as fellow humans.
The UN is the agency who should be dealing with this, and we as a member should take our share of the cost both in terms of accepting refugees within our borders and the cost of processing them at source in Turkey/Libia/Lebanon/Egypt etc.
Merkel has regrettably failed the test with her grandiose Einfühlungsvermögen (empathy). Cameron is at least addressing one of the proximate causes of the problem in a small but practical way that distinguishes refugees from migrants more generally.
Always nice to hear the views of a migrant.
Europe's political leaders have shown themselves to be soft, weak and largely incapable of dealing with this, and probably any crisis. In the event of an invasion, Merkel would sit frozen and blinking at her desk, whilst Russian soldiers marched straight into the German Chancellory, unchallenged.
FWIW my punting advice is not to lay off on Corbyn bets. Do your own research, but IMO he's won, though not on the first ballot.
On refugees, DavidL speaks for me too. There's far too much whataboutery and thatwontreallysolveitery and itsthevictimsfaultinnitery going on when people are dying in large numbers. Sure, as I've been arguing for months, the EU should fund really well-run refugee camps along the Med (starting with the ones already there), move refugees there and then as a careful controlled process take in as many as we feel able to. I think we all more or less agree about that, apart from a few who think it's not a problem at all.
But right now the suffering is far too great to stand around pondering what we might do in a few months' time. By all means let's push for a medium-term solution, but right now let's take in a decent number ourselves - if Germany can take 800K and even Switzerland can take 25K, we should be able to manage 200K. Our current position as the odd one out with effing Orban is just embarrassing.
Thank you all.
The Away Fans @theawayfans 1h1 hour ago
Don't miss out on this, Ireland will definitely beat Gibraltar tonight. It's a free £40!
Now how many thousands did you order..
We actually have no responsibility to anybody beyond our shores, however quite rightly most of us are quite prepared to do something to help if possible. But at the moment its a bit like people standing on a bridge watching somebody drowning and everybody screeching
Somebody do something.
The posturing of the likes of Cooper carrying a refugee placard in the leadership election I find particularly cynical.
What do you say to the Broxtowe constituent who slides further down the housing list? Or are all refugees expected to go 'anywhere but Nottingham'.
Perhaps if your party hadn't allowed the UK to be flooded with economic migrants, the electorate would be more sympathetic to helping out those who now find themselves in genuine need.
Not for the first time the Nats have put easy rhetoric ahead of actual governance and practical issues
But hey, anything to get Nicola in the papers, right?
There is a worldwide problem. People have seen where the grass is greener, and aided by a vast criminal network, are prepared to travel to camp on it. But to listen to many on Twitter, you would think it was an issue we should be prepared to bear alone. That would cause huge difficulty to our own citizens - and is utterly wrong.
There is no hard-heartedness about saying they should not come here. In England we have one of the highest population densities in the world. There would be hard-heartedness in saying we will not help them in some other ways. We will assist with the cost of their relocation to Nebraska. Or British Colombia. Or the Massif Central.
http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/broadband_speed_in_my_area_v2.aspx
as it will give you an idea of the performance of your connection relative to those around you who are with different providers.
Also worth checking with Virgin that your router has optimised the connection line as there are a few changes that can be made to improve signal quality.
I would be interested to know what the conditions in the refugee camps around Syria are like and whether they are being properly funded, especially since the Syrian Civil War doesn't look like ending anytime soon. If I was stuck in one of these camps for several years, most alternatives would look good.
According to the Guardian, the family of the two boys who drowned had actually been living in Istanbul for the last three years in apartment paid for by the Canadian sister, and the father had a work permit. It would be useful to know what the thought process was in their decision to leave Turkey since it might help us formulate a better response.
It would be nice if these groups could survive in their homelands but the chances - at present - are poor so we should give these people refuge as a priority.
I would also add - and have been saying this too for a while - that the response of the rich countries in the Middle East has been pitiful. There does not appear to be any solidarity in the Muslim world or indeed much concept of charity when rich countries such as Qatar, the UAE, SA etc do nothing to help those displaced by war or indeed those countries which are bearing the burden: Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. It is shameful.
Words are cheap Cooper
I did not say we should shoulder the burden alone, but take some responsibility collectively.
Your post seems to be either shrugging your shoulders and saying we already do our fair share.
So are you happy with the UN's response or not?
Well these countries are not as pathetically sentimental as we are and have a keen eye to their own interests including not destabilising the balance of their populations. Those with long memories may remember what happened to Jordan after it accepted huge numbers of Palestinian refugees...
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/britains-70-million-debate/4-migration-non-eu-nationals-effects-recent-policy-changes-net-migration
The National Audit Office reported in March 2012 that 159,000 people could be subject to removal for overstaying or otherwise violating conditions of their stay. It is not known how many of these are students.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics
Net non EU migration: 196,000
Some of these will be intercompany transfers, people heading into high paying jobs etc. But I can't believe they all are and the Migration observatory article backs up that there are alot of people that shouldn't be here.
Whilst we're in the EU, EU migration obviously we have no control over - that's a seperate issue... but the net non EU migration number looks... high to me.
Much of Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam have lived under repressive regimes. Eventually, all these regimes either crumbled or softened. Most of the citizens of those countries now lead very productive and rewarding lives even if (in the case of Vietnam or China) the Government has very unattractive aspects.
A civil war -- especially a prolonged one in which the two sides are evenly balanced -- causes way more suffering & damage than a repressive regime.
It was wrong to encourage regime change in the first place.
The best thing for Syria now is a reasonably functioning Government. That de facto probably means supporting Assad and the Russians to establish law and order.
The worst thing is to prolong the civil war by bombing or intervening militarily.
I don't see what role there is for the UN to stop economic migrants from Congo or Senegal or Somalia or Afghanistan - who are selfishly using the chaos caused by conflict in Syria as an opportunity to bust through borders.
They are now about to try the 'don't like egg and chips? Ok, how about triple eggs and triple chips?' approach to the rest of this parliament.
England and Scotland didn't agree on much at the GE. But the common thread of 'Not Labour' is being proved correct as they seem incapable of running a bath right now, let alone their own party or god forbid the country.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/hungary-s-orban-says-flow-of-migrants-endless-1.2340196
For some time I've had a feeling that it might have been best for Labour not to do any vetting. The MPs made a big mistake in getting Corbyn past their threshold, and everything the party has done since then has compounded that mistake.
Now, whoever wins, there could well be vocal complaints (perhaps justifiably) - the process has been hideously mishandled. If the result is close, these complaints will get even more vocal.
If they had done no vetting, it would have saved them a great deal of pain and disharmony. After all, neither Harman or anyone else mentioned vetting until after Corbyn was selected.
By all means, take in several thousand from refugee camps, but not 200,000. We aren't in a bidding war with Germany and Sweden.
As for the waiting list, I don't have those figures. I highly doubt that they were consulted but nor do I see that as relevant, people jump waiting lists all the time. I know of people who have become pregnant in order to jump up the list, does that require consulting everyone else on the list first?
This may explain why their speed trap times are the fastest by a margin.
The entire thing reads not just as tokenism but as a publicity stunt by the Labour Party and not a solution to the crisis in any way:
http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/13644401.UPDATED__Council_leader__responds_positively__to_request_to_take_in_10_Syrian_refugee_families/?ref=mr&lp=11
'What do you say to the Broxtowe constituent who slides further down the housing list? Or are all refugees expected to go 'anywhere but Nottingham'.
Broxtowe voters certainly dodged a bullet in May.
Seems like it runs counter to the very notion of representative democracy and would be an incredibly expensive and bureaucratic nightmare. Or are you only wanting that done in this instance?
So scaling up to the UK as a whole yields 65,000,000/200,000 * 10 * 5.6 = 18,200 refugees.
well worth a read
...............................................
Down thread - Best wishes to Innocent Abroad.
But if there is an issue of destabilisation then there is even more of a question of why it should be our societies which should be destabilised. Or be at risk of it. (The Palestinians are I think a special case since the Arab world largely turned its back on them and the Palestinians refused to integrate in any way in any society in which they found refuge as a group.)
And that question is not being addressed by all those European politicians so keen to be seen to be doing something. I will repeat what I said before: the history of large scale Muslim immigration into Europe has not been such a roaring success that we can simply do more of the same at a time when many of those migrants will be coming from a war zone in an area ridden with extremism and violence and at a time when extremist ideology has a hold amongst some in the population.
The question of who should come, how many and how they can and will be successfully and lastingly integrated is a key one which needs to be addressed before we invite more in and not after when we are wondering why we have problems and scratching our heads at what to do.
How good of you to suggest on behalf of overcrowded families that the government should waste the housing department's tax-payers money on opinion polls before each and every decision they make rather than spend it on housing.
They were children. The father has suffered a terrible loss, no doubt made worse by the realisation of his own role in it. There is no need for anyone to kick a man when he is down. We can all mourn unknown children, grieving parents and feel and say that the world should not be like this, that common humanity requires us to do what we can to help. One does not walk on the other side when one sees someone suffering.
And when we've done that we think hard about what practical steps can be done and by whom which will reduce the risk of such tragedies.
The argument is about that not about who feels the most. And I resent the way that it is being framed as this in order to avoid the hard thinking which needs to be done. This will only result in bad policy, resentment, more tragedy and unintended outcomes.
"The argument is about that not about who feels the most. And I resent the way that it is being framed as this in order to avoid the hard thinking which needs to be done. This will only result in bad policy, resentment, more tragedy and unintended outcomes."
The issue around helping these people is that they are best served by being properly looked after near their own country, with arguably some people being granted asylum elsewhere - orphans the sick and the otherwise needy. These people belong back in their own country when it is safe. This is not a cheap option, because they need to be kept safe and healthy and happy. Although how they could be kept in some sort of constructive frame of mind I don't know. The most dangerous thing for them is to encourage the idea that they can easily travel on.
Plus if these migrants/ refugees/ asylum seekers are dissipated throughout Europe - they will never return and millions more will be encouraged to leave with the inevitable hysteria and dangers involved in that.
From the UK point of view the scenes in Calais are a good pointer to what would happen. The Schengen open borders policy was always a hostage to fortune and in the current situation of mass movement s of people it is clearly broken.