PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
Why does it 'make sense' ?
People are desperate enough to try it regardless, however more people will try it if there is a better prospect of finding a place to successfully claim asylum afterwards.
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
Why does it 'make sense' ?
For me, if some Syrian refugee turns up it's far better to take them in, and make them a productive member of society then abandon them and simply hope they stop them coming.
We can take some in, I'm ok with that, but there is also the option of not taking them in, but not abandoning them either, that is providing assistance to place them elsewhere perhaps, somewhere more appropriate or socially and culturally accepting than much of western europe's population is feeling right now. Not taking them in does not necessarily mean we are abandoning them. It could, but it isn't an either or issue.
TA Is that supposed to be English.. maybe you should have another go.. The fourth form is two forms below the sixth form..
I have to stick up for the confusion - I guess it makes sense, but although the years 12-13 I attended at school were the 6th form, not once in the previous years had any other year been referred to as a 'form'. I certainly didn't make the connection at first glance.
These "years 12-13" of which you speak are an unnecessary new-fangled invention when the old way of doing it worked just fine! Rather like all this metric nonsense.
Even arguing for the relaxation of the laws that prevent asylum seekers from finding work for 12 months as a crime prevention tool - who'd have thunk it ?
I'm not sure what to make of the Cameron pledge - the thought of him and George Osborne walking round the refugee camps in Turkey selecting which of the poor unfortunates look like suitable candidates for resettlement to Britain is a shade disturbing.
Welcome though it is, we remain on the horns of the dilemma as to how to deal with the Syrian Diaspora in the medium term. Giving the refugees a reason not to come to Europe has to be balanced with giving them a reason to stay close to Syria and ensuring the camps are as comfortable as possible.
Ultimately, the solution to this problem is not walling ourselves behind our prosperity and abandoning the rest of the world to misery - the answer is to export our prosperity and stability to the places that don't have it now. That means force and investment, punishment and employment, order and opportunities.
Call it a Marshall Plan (which it isn't) but restoring order and stability and by definition prosperity to Tripoli, Damascus and elsewhere seems to me to be the answer and we (and that means the EU) can't do it alone - it needs the US, Russia, China and the Gulf States to play their part in the economic, social and political reconstruction of the region and that has to include not only a political settlement in Syria but a settlement for Israel, Iran, Palestine and all parties.
... Just a few days ago he told us taking in more refugees would not solve the problem. Now, he's taking in refugees.
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
It's quite possible to do something whilst knowing that it will not actually help.
Throw bitter tears at the ocean if you must, but know all that comes back is the tide.
When a PM says that taking in refugees won't solve a problem, in response to other countries planning to take in refugees, that implies that he's not keen on taking in refugees. And tbh, I'm not the one sounding bitter.
Wasn't that in response to Germany's actions? What he is proposing might be rather different: get them from the camps (where they can be processed first?), rather than take in any Tom, Dick and Harry who has made the journey.
More importantly, Germany's actions just enriches the people smugglers. Ours might not (at least the ones on the seabound and European legs)
I don't think Germany is planning to take in every Tom, Dick and Harry. And rather suspiciously these proposals only leaked yesterday, after the front-page headlines. Prior to that, there was very little from Cameron on taking in refugees. If he was really only responding to Germany, he would have endorsed the idea of taking in refugees, but sighted that we need to more to the solve the problem.
Can you show me anything where Germany has said it is going to vet incoming migrants? I haven't seen anything, but might have missed. If they do not vet them, then they are allowing anyone in.
And your latter part is incorrect if, as is sensible, he thought Germany's approach totally unsuitable for the UK.
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
Why does it 'make sense' ?
People are desperate enough to try it regardless, however more people will try it if there is a better prospect of finding a place to successfully claim asylum afterwards.
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
Why does it 'make sense' ?
People are desperate enough to try it regardless, however more people will try it if there is a better prospect of finding a place to successfully claim asylum afterwards.
TA Is that supposed to be English.. maybe you should have another go.. The fourth form is two forms below the sixth form..
I have to stick up for the confusion - I guess it makes sense, but although the years 12-13 I attended at school were the 6th form, not once in the previous years had any other year been referred to as a 'form'. I certainly didn't make the connection at first glance.
These "years 12-13" of which you speak are an unnecessary new-fangled invention when the old way of doing it worked just fine! Rather like all this metric nonsense.
@JosiasJessop I'm assuming they will. They've only said Syrians will automatically get to stay in Germany, which implies that they will vet the other immigrants.
On Cameron, I'm referring simply to the concept of taking in refugees, not necessarily the German approach. Cameron did not just dismiss the German approach, he actively said that taking in refugees was not the solution. If he had an issue merely with Germany's method, he would have simply criticised that, as opposed to criticising taking in refugees.
"According to Canadian journalist Terry Glavin, who spoke to the aunt in Vancouver, Alan's father Abdullah had been kidnapped during the Islamic State siege Kobane earlier this year and had all of his teeth pulled out."
OK Let us go through the check list again..Just a few weeks ago, in the frenzy of the GE, Labour and the left in general were screaming blue murder that the NHS is in a state of collapse and cannot cope. The Schools system was in danger of collapse. Thousands of people were homeless and, or, living in sub standard and over crowded accommodation. There are not enough GPs Food banks are growing at a fast rate because people are starving . That the number of children living in poverty is rising. Not enough jobs for young people The old are dying from neglect because the pensions are too low. The pensioners are getting too much from the state.
So..let us take in a few thousand refugees from the Middle East. Not enough say the lefties..we have room for several hundred thousands Sounds about right so far. I think we have almost reached peak insanity levels
On Cameron, I'm referring simply to the concept of taking in refugees, not necessarily the German approach. Cameron did not just dismiss the German approach, he actively said that taking in refugees was not the solution..
That's because he and Germany have been talking about different problems. Germany wanted a direct solution to the problem of a crush of migrants on the borders of Europe, and Cameron was talking about a solution to the problem of people dying in the Med or otherwise on the journey, which causes the crush. Germany's solution reduces one but not the other, while Cameron was saying he was focusing on one, which would indirectly fix the latter if his ideas - focused aid closer to Syria etc - worked, but had nothing to say on the immediate problem.
Cameron was right that taking in refugees is not the solution to the problem of people dying trying to get to Europe. But it can simultaneously be true that by focusing purely on the cause of refugees (we'll leave the migrant issue aside for the moment), yes, he was not offering a solution to the same problem that Germany wants fixed. Or, rather, the problem they want moved off our tv screens, even if it is only temporary, that is, the pressures caused by a massive build up of refugees at the borders.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
If you wanted more sympathy then these shouldn't have happened:
Endless lies from governments about controlling immigration. Establishment tolerance of lack of integration and criminal activity of immigrant groups. The negatives of immigration concentrated among working class communities. Endless accusations of racism at anyone upon whom immigration was having a negative effect. Holy than thou attitudes from privileged people who suffered none of those negative effects.
Everyone has a threshold at which they say 'no more' and many have long since reached that point.
Those that condemn them will have their own threshold point, very often at a lower level than those they take such pleasure in condemning.
Certainly not, i was raised on classic sounds of the 60s and 70s thank you very much (albeit in the early 90s). I'd heard of the Boomtown Rats, but did not recall they were Geldof's band.
The_Apocalypse said: I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive.
I agree David L is usually spot on regarding social issues.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
If you wanted more sympathy then these shouldn't have happened:
Endless lies from governments about controlling immigration. Establishment tolerance of lack of integration and criminal activity of immigrant groups. The negatives of immigration concentrated among working class communities. Endless accusations of racism at anyone upon whom immigration was having a negative effect. Holy than thou attitudes from privileged people who suffered none of those negative effects.
Everyone has a threshold at which they say 'no more' and many have long since reached that point.
Those that condemn them will have their own threshold point, very often at a lower level than those they take such pleasure in condemning.
There's a difference between economic migration and refugees. If people are taking out their upset at economic migration on refugees, then that says more about them then anything else.
And on a threshold, as I said before in the post-war era this country has previous for not liking immigration. It's hardly as if there was a load of good-will for those coming to this country to begin with.
' The owners of Eggborough Power Station have said it will stop generating power in March 2016, subject to consultations with staff and "government bodies". '
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
Cameron has done a U-Turn. Just a few days ago he told us taking in more refugees would not solve the problem. Now, he's taking in refugees.
Merkel's policy is humane, and kind - giving many Syrians a brand new opportunity. People on PB appear to think that Cameron's policy will stop dangerous crossings. The policy of simply giving aid has not stopped those dangerous crossings, which is why we are here now with a human catastrophe. Nothing, bar making Syria a safe place again will stop these crossings. Therefore, for those who have made such a journey, it is great to offer them home, a chance to rebuild, and a society to become a part of. I applaud Germany, and the response of many Germans - especially their football clubs - to this crisis.
On Alternative for Germany, it alarmed me partly because of much of the tone of PB is almost a will for Germany to opt for the kind of anti-immigrant, right-wing, populist parties that have proved popular in other places in Europe. As if somehow, these kinds of parties gaining popularity is amazing. People have talked of it all being Labour's fault rather public antipathy to more immigration. But it was only in the 50s, and 60s when there was public antipathy to immigration from Britain's former colonies. Britain has never been a fan of immigration, at least not in the post-war era.
Merkel's policy is not humane and kind. It is responsible for encouraging thousands of people to take a dangerous journey to Europe. The policy will have to be ended very soon because otherwise Germany will be overwhelmed by the situation.
I think she is just upset that the Nasty Party will be providing assistance in a way that is both ethical and fair. Whilst those on the left engage in mass virtue signalling and come up with suggestions which would result in countless deaths.
I'm not upset actually, I'm quite happy that Cameron is taking in refugees. My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.
I don't think anyone is calling refugees terrorists and greedy. They are saying that some of the people posing as refugees might be economic migrants, and a small few may be terrorists.
Yesterday on PB I saw a post which actively DID call the refugees terrorists, and a following one which called them greedy.
I called these hordes of economic migrants terrorists, not any genuine refugee...
Well that's a relief (on the refugees). But it's still a bit much to call the economic migrants terrorists.
Really? Co-conspirators with criminal gangs, to gain unlawful entry to our countries, to loot our benefit system, to intimidate us into capitulation by sheer force of numbers, to act violently and threateningly when challenged, to act kamikaze-like in their determination, to weaken our resolve with the bodies of their kith and kin littering our beaches?
Sweet reasonableness itself!
I hardly doubt there is a deliberate plot among migrants to intimidate us into capitulation by the force of numbers - a lot of them are coming because they want a better life. And to loot our benefit system? Really?
Certainly not, i was raised on classic sounds of the 60s and 70s thank you very much (albeit in the early 90s). I'd heard of the Boomtown Rats, but did not recall they were Geldof's band.
Classic sounds of 1977 to this day for me.
In fact i am more familiar with the 1977 version of God Save The Queen than the current National Anthem
' The owners of Eggborough Power Station have said it will stop generating power in March 2016, subject to consultations with staff and "government bodies". '
I think she is just upset that the Nasty Party will be providing assistance in a way that is both ethical and fair. Whilst those on the left engage in mass virtue signalling and come up with suggestions which would result in countless deaths.
I'm not upset actually, I'm quite happy that Cameron is taking in refugees. My 'upset' as you call it is more at the reactions of those on this website. And the Left, unlike the Right aren't calling refugees terrorists and greedy.
I don't think anyone is calling refugees terrorists and greedy. They are saying that some of the people posing as refugees might be economic migrants, and a small few may be terrorists.
Yesterday on PB I saw a post which actively DID call the refugees terrorists, and a following one which called them greedy.
I called these hordes of economic migrants terrorists, not any genuine refugee...
Well that's a relief (on the refugees). But it's still a bit much to call the economic migrants terrorists.
Really? Co-conspirators with criminal gangs, to gain unlawful entry to our countries, to loot our benefit system, to intimidate us into capitulation by sheer force of numbers, to act violently and threateningly when challenged, to act kamikaze-like in their determination, to weaken our resolve with the bodies of their kith and kin littering our beaches?
Sweet reasonableness itself!
I hardly doubt there is a deliberate plot among migrants to intimidate us into capitulation by the force of numbers - a lot of them are coming because they want a better life. And to loot our benefit system? Really?
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
One can try to deter dangerous crossings, by returning those who have been rescued to where they embarked from. Or one can encourage them, by bringing them to Europe.
So back to Syria then. Somehow, I don't think that solves the humanitarian crisis either....
Since practically none of them embarked in Syria your snide comment simply highlights your ignorance.
On Cameron, I'm referring simply to the concept of taking in refugees, not necessarily the German approach. Cameron did not just dismiss the German approach, he actively said that taking in refugees was not the solution..
That's because he and Germany have been talking about different problems. Germany wanted a direct solution to the problem of a crush of migrants on the borders of Europe, and Cameron was talking about a solution to the problem of people dying in the Med or otherwise on the journey, which causes the crush. Germany's solution reduces one but not the other, while Cameron was saying he was focusing on one, which would indirectly fix the latter if his ideas - focused aid closer to Syria etc - worked, but had nothing to say on the immediate problem.
Cameron was right that taking in refugees is not the solution to the problem of people dying trying to get to Europe. But it can simultaneously be true that by focusing purely on the cause of refugees (we'll leave the migrant issue aside for the moment), yes, he was not offering a solution to the same problem that Germany wants fixed. Or, rather, the problem they want moved off our tv screens, even if it is only temporary, that is, the pressures caused by a massive build up of refugees at the borders.
And that is why Cameron can still be right that taking in refugees is not a solution to this problem while giving in to the changing public mood and taking in more - it won't solve the underlying problem, he was right, and that remains so even if we do take in more, that's just taking a decision to salve our national conscience, which is morally fine even if in many other ways it really won't help anyone but those fortunate individuals permitted in.
Where he was probably wrong was thinking the public weren't willing to take on the cost of accepting more refugees even though it won't fix the problem of them coming and dying, when in fact it appears that currently, it seems, they are and we are.
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
One can try to deter dangerous crossings, by returning those who have been rescued to where they embarked from. Or one can encourage them, by bringing them to Europe.
So back to Syria then. Somehow, I don't think that solves the humanitarian crisis either....
Since practically none of them embarked in Syria your snide comment simply highlights your ignorance.
How on earth is my comment snide? And people say those on the Left are easily offended.
And I don't see how they wouldn't have embarked in Syria. They come from Syria.
Does anyone know how reliable the Exaro news site is? Their wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaro) makes them sound reputable, but there;s no telling how impartial that is.
On Cameron, I'm referring simply to the concept of taking in refugees, not necessarily the German approach. Cameron did not just dismiss the German approach, he actively said that taking in refugees was not the solution..
That's because he and Germany have been talking about different problems. Germany wanted a direct solution to the problem of a crush of migrants on the borders of Europe, and Cameron was talking about a solution to the problem of people dying in the Med or otherwise on the journey, which causes the crush. Germany's solution reduces one but not the other, while Cameron was saying he was focusing on one, which would indirectly fix the latter if his ideas - focused aid closer to Syria etc - worked, but had nothing to say on the immediate problem.
Cameron was right that taking in refugees is not the solution to the problem of people dying trying to get to Europe. But it can simultaneously be true that by focusing purely on the cause of refugees (we'll leave the migrant issue aside for the moment), yes, he was not offering a solution to the same problem that Germany wants fixed. Or, rather, the problem they want moved off our tv screens, even if it is only temporary, that is, the pressures caused by a massive build up of refugees at the borders.
And that is why Cameron can still be right that taking in refugees is not a solution to this problem while giving in to the changing public mood and taking in more - it won't solve the underlying problem, he was right, and that remains so even if we do take in more, that's just taking a decision to salve our national conscience, which is morally fine even if in many other ways it really won't help anyone but those fortunate individuals permitted in.
Where he was probably wrong was thinking the public weren't willing to take on the cost of accepting more refugees even though it won't fix the problem of them coming and dying, when in fact it appears that currently, it seems, they are and we are.
Changing public mood? Really? We've been told all this week the public doesn't want a single refugee on UK shores.
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
One can try to deter dangerous crossings, by returning those who have been rescued to where they embarked from. Or one can encourage them, by bringing them to Europe.
So back to Syria then. Somehow, I don't think that solves the humanitarian crisis either....
Since practically none of them embarked in Syria your snide comment simply highlights your ignorance.
How on earth is my comment snide? And people say those on the Left are easily offended.
And I don't see how they wouldn't have embarked in Syria. They come from Syria.
The distinction is supposed to be that if they made it to somewhere relatively safe and comfortable, eg Turkey, and then moved on further. If they were no longer in danger in Turkey or whereever, they it would presumably be safe to return them there.
I noticed some posts on the previous thread making snide comments about Abdullah Kurdi needing some dental work.
He was imprisoned by the Assad regime and was tortured. This torture involved his teeth being removed.
Do you really think it frivolous for victims of torture to seek medical treatment?
An odd comment - the BBC says he lost his tooth/teeth when he was kidnapped by ISIS. Seems like a rather desperate attempt by you or your source to smear the Assad Government to me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34142695
Lest we forget, when Assad was in full control, this problem didn't exist. Provided you didn't tread on his toes, Assad's Syria was by all accounts a very pleasant place to live.
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
One can try to deter dangerous crossings, by returning those who have been rescued to where they embarked from. Or one can encourage them, by bringing them to Europe.
So back to Syria then. Somehow, I don't think that solves the humanitarian crisis either....
Since practically none of them embarked in Syria your snide comment simply highlights your ignorance.
How on earth is my comment snide? And people say those on the Left are easily offended.
And I don't see how they wouldn't have embarked in Syria. They come from Syria.
The distinction is supposed to be that if they made it to somewhere relatively safe and comfortable, eg Turkey, and then moved on further. If they were no longer in danger in Turkey or whereever, they it would presumably be safe to return them there.
So what happens to the refugees once they go back there then? Do they get put in a camp - where they could be for months, years? The jist of my point remains. It hardly solves the humanitarian crisis.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
If you wanted more sympathy then these shouldn't have happened:
Endless lies from governments about controlling immigration. Establishment tolerance of lack of integration and criminal activity of immigrant groups. The negatives of immigration concentrated among working class communities. Endless accusations of racism at anyone upon whom immigration was having a negative effect. Holy than thou attitudes from privileged people who suffered none of those negative effects.
Everyone has a threshold at which they say 'no more' and many have long since reached that point.
Those that condemn them will have their own threshold point, very often at a lower level than those they take such pleasure in condemning.
There's a difference between economic migration and refugees. If people are taking out their upset at economic migration on refugees, then that says more about them then anything else.
And on a threshold, as I said before in the post-war era this country has previous for not liking immigration. It's hardly as if there was a load of good-will for those coming to this country to begin with.
Most of the 'refugees' are themselves economic migrants - the prevalence of young men among the 'refugees' is always a good indication.
As to thresholds perhaps I should have explained myself better - I'm not talking about national thresholds but each individual person's threshold.
Its very easy to say 'let them all in' if you're not personally negatively affected but people tend to change their minds very fast once they start to become personally affected.
Adjusted Well @Adjustedwell 40m40 minutes ago Why don't Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq go to countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, instead of going to Christian Europe ?
Adjusted Well @Adjustedwell 40m40 minutes ago Why don't Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq go to countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, instead of going to Christian Europe ?
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive. Reading PB over the last couple of days, I now know why I'm not someone on the Right-Wing of British politics.
If you wanted more sympathy then these shouldn't have happened:
Endless lies from governments about controlling immigration. Establishment tolerance of lack of integration and criminal activity of immigrant groups. The negatives of immigration concentrated among working class communities. Endless accusations of racism at anyone upon whom immigration was having a negative effect. Holy than thou attitudes from privileged people who suffered none of those negative effects.
Everyone has a threshold at which they say 'no more' and many have long since reached that point.
Those that condemn them will have their own threshold point, very often at a lower level than those they take such pleasure in condemning.
There's a difference between economic migration and refugees. If people are taking out their upset at economic migration on refugees, then that says more about them then anything else.
And on a threshold, as I said before in the post-war era this country has previous for not liking immigration. It's hardly as if there was a load of good-will for those coming to this country to begin with.
Most of the 'refugees' are themselves economic migrants - the prevalence of young men among the 'refugees' is always a good indication.
As to thresholds perhaps I should have explained myself better - I'm not talking about national thresholds but each individual person's threshold.
Its very easy to say 'let them all in' if you're not personally negatively affected but people tend to change their minds very fast once they start to become personally affected.
On your first point, yes but there are still a refugee. When making the distinction, I was referring to those who are purely economic migrants.
I'm not saying let them all in; just some. I lived quite a bit of my childhood in London, and went to schools where many children from immigrant backgrounds attended. It did not affect my life negatively. But then my grandparents are immigrants, so maybe that makes my view more biased.
Adjusted Well @Adjustedwell 40m40 minutes ago Why don't Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq go to countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, instead of going to Christian Europe ?
It's better in Europe!
Carswell speaking like a true disciple of Tony Abbott!
Adjusted Well @Adjustedwell 40m40 minutes ago Why don't Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq go to countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, instead of going to Christian Europe ?
It's better in Europe!
Carswell speaking like a true disciple of Tony Abbott!
Prime ministers of Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia reject a quota system for accepting migrants proposed by Germany. BBC
Looks like the East are fed up with Merkel's antics and are now in open revolt. Maybe they'll think that joining the EU was not such a clever idea, after all.
Adjusted Well @Adjustedwell 40m40 minutes ago Why don't Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq go to countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, instead of going to Christian Europe ?
It's better in Europe!
Carswell speaking like a true disciple of Tony Abbott!
I still can't believe Australia elected that man.
Well the chaos in the ALP went some way to helping him, however on present polling the ALP leads the Coalition 53.2% to 46.8% on preferences, so he is likely to be gone at the next election, if the Coalition have not replaced him with Bishop or Turnbull before polling day! http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that maand Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in it.
One can
So back to Syria then. Somehow, I don't think that solves the humanitarian crisis either....
Since practically none of them embarked in Syria your snide comment simply highlights your ignorance.
How on earth is my comment snide? And people say those on the Left are easily offended.
And I don't see how they wouldn't have embarked in Syria. They come from Syria.
The distincre.
So what happens to the refugees once they go back there then? Do they get put in a camp - where they could be for months, years? The jist of my point remains. It hardly solves the humanitarian crisis.
Not by itself, no. No solution proposed is solving this humanitarian crisis.
1) Take in more refugees, and that's it - helps those that make it, does not help stop more being created or more dying on the way. That can in no way be said to solve the crisis,though it will lance the boil of it for a time
2) Spend money on housing them closer to the conflict zone, try to stabilise the area and get more culturally suitable nations for refugee and host nation to take on more (it should not all be down to the immediate neighbours of Jordan et al). - This at least tries to prevent more being created and dying on a perilous journey, but will take years and years to work, if it ever will. It attempts to solve the crisis
By taking in more refugees while, I hope, still pointing out it doesn't actually fix anything, we will now essentially be trying a combination of 1) and 2).
What I will not do is condemn countries trying only 1) or 2), because neither is without flaws, or devoid of compassion for that matter.
This debate seems to have made people allergic to taking a stance other than between two extremes,and I don't think that's right - I'm glad we're taking in more refugees, we probably can handle it, and it provides some relief at least, but criticising not taking in refugees for notsolvingthe humanitarian crisis makes no sense either, when the other solution sure as hell doesn't except in the most superficial of ways (if very meaningfully for those lucky few)
I noticed some posts on the previous thread making snide comments about Abdullah Kurdi needing some dental work.
He was imprisoned by the Assad regime and was tortured. This torture involved his teeth being removed.
Do you really think it frivolous for victims of torture to seek medical treatment?
An odd comment - the BBC says he lost his tooth/teeth when he was kidnapped by ISIS. Seems like a rather desperate attempt by you or your source to smear the Assad Government to me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34142695
Lest we forget, when Assad was in full control, this problem didn't exist. Provided you didn't tread on his toes, Assad's Syria was by all accounts a very pleasant place to live.
As was Iraq. Saddam won prizes from the UN for world-class improvements in literacy and health care...
PB worships David Cameron as some amazing great, when really as @Monkfield says he simply did a U-Turn, probably because The Sun and Mail front-pages. He's a PR guy first and foremost, and if Cameron is the best politician this country has to offer then we are well and truly screwed. I'm glad he did that U-Turn, but it was a U-Turn nonetheless.
And I have to laugh at how badly PB wants German public opinion to correspond to their assessments of the refugees. Asking why Alternative For Germany aren't shooting up in polls, as if it's some kind of abomination that they aren't following the lead of other European countries by voting for Right-Wing crazies such as Front Nationale.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that many of us share is that the policies of Germany and Sweden will encourage people to keep crossing the Meditarranean. And will encourage people to keep moving across the Middle East and Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in my previous post, I think that those dangerous crossings are going to happen anyway, regardless of what Germany or Sweden do. Therefore it makes sense to offer a home to those who make it.
One can try to deter dangerous crossings, by returning those who have been rescued to where they embarked from. Or one can encourage them, by bringing them to Europe.
So back to Syria then. Somehow, I don't think that solves the humanitarian crisis either....
Since practically none of them embarked in Syria your snide comment simply highlights your ignorance.
How on earth is my comment snide? And people say those on the Left are easily offended.
And I don't see how they wouldn't have embarked in Syria. They come from Syria.
Embarked clearly means got on the boat. All the evidence is that they are not taking boats from Syria to Greece but are embarking in Turkey. Or in the case of those from North Africa in Libya. Unless you think they sailed across the desert from Gambia on boats?
The media, particularly the BBC, keeps repeating that the public mood has changed over the last few days.
As far as I'm aware there hasn't been a single scientific opinion poll to back up this claim.
I don't think such shifts are that easy to measure, accurately. The media can drive shifts, but I do think they are more likely to emphasise one, after having judged one is occurring and jumping on it. When the Sun and others are leading on emotional pleas to do something - even if editorials are more nuanced than headlines - not just the 'usual suspects' as far as the right are concerned, I think there probably us a shift of some kind occurring.
Adjusted Well @Adjustedwell 40m40 minutes ago Why don't Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq go to countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, instead of going to Christian Europe ?
It's better in Europe!
Carswell speaking like a true disciple of Tony Abbott!
I still can't believe Australia elected that man.
I can't believe Labour is about to elect Jeremy Corbyn.
I wonder where Australia would be if Abbot had done just slightly better in 2010 - the Coalition and Labor had been level on 72 seats after all and Gillard had to rely on independents.
Embarked clearly means got on the boat. All the evidence is that they are not taking boats from Syria to Greece but are embarking in Turkey. Or in the case of those from North Africa in Libya. Unless you think they sailed across the desert from Gambia on boats?
Ah, so your the one making snide comments now? You still haven't explained how my original comment was snide, btw. I assumed embarked meant to go on a journey in generally, not that it specifically meant on a aircraft or a boat. But nonetheless, as I said to @kle4 the jist of my point remains: what happens to these people once they get back to Turkey? Do they get put in camps, or then back into Syria? Neither of which solves the humanitarian problem.
Those on the Right are really rattled today, and in fact just rattled in general when anyone dares to criticise their POV and how they see the world.
Adjusted Well @Adjustedwell 40m40 minutes ago Why don't Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq go to countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, instead of going to Christian Europe ?
It's better in Europe!
Carswell speaking like a true disciple of Tony Abbott!
I still can't believe Australia elected that man.
I can't believe Labour is about to elect Jeremy Corbyn.
If you wanted more sympathy then these shouldn't have happened:
Endless lies from governments about controlling immigration. Establishment tolerance of lack of integration and criminal activity of immigrant groups. The negatives of immigration concentrated among working class communities. Endless accusations of racism at anyone upon whom immigration was having a negative effect. Holy than thou attitudes from privileged people who suffered none of those negative effects.
Everyone has a threshold at which they say 'no more' and many have long since reached that point.
Those that condemn them will have their own threshold point, very often at a lower level than those they take such pleasure in condemning.
There's a difference between economic migration and refugees. If people are taking out their upset at economic migration on refugees, then that says more about them then anything else.
And on a threshold, as I said before in the post-war era this country has previous for not liking immigration. It's hardly as if there was a load of good-will for those coming to this country to begin with.
Most of the 'refugees' are themselves economic migrants - the prevalence of young men among the 'refugees' is always a good indication.
As to thresholds perhaps I should have explained myself better - I'm not talking about national thresholds but each individual person's threshold.
Its very easy to say 'let them all in' if you're not personally negatively affected but people tend to change their minds very fast once they start to become personally affected.
On your first point, yes but there are still a refugee. When making the distinction, I was referring to those who are purely economic migrants.
I'm not saying let them all in; just some. I lived quite a bit of my childhood in London, and went to schools where many children from immigrant backgrounds attended. It did not affect my life negatively. But then my grandparents are immigrants, so maybe that makes my view more biased.
This is when all the lies told by governments about immigration now become so damaging.
From 'only 10-15,000 Eastern European migrants' to 'British Jobs For British Workers' to 'no ifs no buts' immigration pledges.
Trust has gone.
As to letting some but not all in - who is to decide and how is it to be managed and what is to be done with those who come anyway even when you tell them they're not wanted ? Once you start to give way then that only encourages more to come and more criminals and terrorists to exploit the situation. And the people who then lose out are the deprived in this country and the genuine deserving refugees.
Cameron has only done a U-turn if you see the issue as "taking <1,000 refugees" versus "taking >1,000 refugees". ....
....
The view that maand Africa so that they can cross the Mediterranean.
And as I said in it.
One can
So back to Syria then. Somehow, I don't think that solves the humanitarian crisis either....
Since practically none of them embarked in Syria your snide comment simply highlights your ignorance.
How on earth is my comment snide? And people say those on the Left are easily offended.
And I don't see how they wouldn't have embarked in Syria. They come from Syria.
The distincre.
So what happens to the refugees once they go back there then? Do they get put in a camp - where they could be for months, years? The jist of my point remains. It hardly solves the humanitarian crisis.
Not by itself, no. No solution proposed is solving this humanitarian crisis.
1) Take in more refugees, and that's it - helps those that make it, does not help stop more being created or more dying on the way. That can in no way be said to solve the crisis,though it will lance the boil of it for a time
2) Spend money on housing them closer to the conflict zone, try to stabilise the area and get more culturally suitable nations for refugee and host nation to take on more (it should not all be down to the immediate neighbours of Jordan et al). - This at least tries to prevent more being created and dying on a perilous journey, but will take years and years to work, if it ever will. It attempts to solve the crisis
.....
You're probably right, and you probably have the most reasoned take on this crisis!
Europe sells the hangman's rope - again - James Lewis
by James Lewis
Today Europe has suicidally imported more than 50 million Muslims -- just as Obama wants us to do here. With America failing to provide international leadership, Europe has simply collapsed and surrendered -- hoping the crocodile will eat it last.
If you wanted more sympathy then these shouldn't have happened:
Endless lies from governments about controlling immigration. Establishment tolerance of lack of integration and criminal activity of immigrant groups. The negatives of immigration concentrated among working class communities. Endless accusations of racism at anyone upon whom immigration was having a negative effect. Holy than thou attitudes from privileged people who suffered none of those negative effects.
Everyone has a threshold at which they say 'no more' and many have long since reached that point.
Those that condemn them will have their own threshold point, very often at a lower level than those they take such pleasure in condemning.
There's a difference between economic migration and refugees. If people are taking out their upset at economic migration on refugees, then that says more about them then anything else.
And on a threshold, as I said before in the post-war era this country has previous for not liking immigration. It's hardly as if there was a load of good-will for those coming to this country to begin with.
Most of the 'refugees' are themselves economic migrants - the prevalence of young men among the 'refugees' is always a good indication.
As to thresholds perhaps I should have explained myself better - I'm not talking about national thresholds but each individual person's threshold.
Its very easy to say 'let them all in' if you're not personally negatively affected but people tend to change their minds very fast once they start to become personally affected.
On your first point, yes but there are still a refugee. When making the distinction, I was referring to those who are purely economic migrants.
I'm not saying let them all in; just some. I lived quite a bit of my childhood in London, and went to schools where many children from immigrant backgrounds attended. It did not affect my life negatively. But then my grandparents are immigrants, so maybe that makes my view more biased.
This is when all the lies told by governments about immigration now become so damaging.
From 'only 10-15,000 Eastern European migrants' to 'British Jobs For British Workers' to 'no ifs no buts' immigration pledges.
Trust has gone.
....
Surely the government would decide the figure, and how it should be managed.
Embarked clearly means got on the boat. All the evidence is that they are not taking boats from Syria to Greece but are embarking in Turkey. Or in the case of those from North Africa in Libya. Unless you think they sailed across the desert from Gambia on boats?
Ah, so your the one making snide comments now? You still haven't explained how my original comment was snide, btw. I assumed embarked meant to go on a journey in generally, not that it specifically meant on a aircraft or a boat. But nonetheless, as I said to @kle4 the jist of my point remains: what happens to these people once they get back to Turkey? Do they get put in camps, or then back into Syria? Neither of which solves the humanitarian problem.
Those on the Right are really rattled today, and in fact just rattled in general when anyone dares to criticise their POV and how they see the world.
Sorry. My assumption that you were being snide was based on my equally incorrect assumption that you actually knew what you were talking about rather than just thrashing around in ignorance. Clearly I was incorrect in that assumption.
And encouraging yet more migration will also do nothing to solve the humanitarian problem. Indeed I am of the opinion that people like you, who blindly call for us to accept these migrants if they survive the journey across the sea, will very soon have blood on your hands as your actions encourage yet more dangerous migration and so result in yet more unnecessary deaths.
Embarked clearly means got on the boat. All the evidence is that they are not taking boats from Syria to Greece but are embarking in Turkey. Or in the case of those from North Africa in Libya. Unless you think they sailed across the desert from Gambia on boats?
But nonetheless, as I said to @kle4 the jist of my point remains: what happens to these people once they get back to Turkey? Do they get put in camps, or then back into Syria? Neither of which solves the humanitarian problem.
Those on the Right are really rattled today, and in fact just rattled in general when anyone dares to criticise their POV and how they see the world.
a) I'm not on the Right (economically perhaps), and b) I've said I'm happy to accept certain numbers of refugees, and c) it has been commented several times that while the camps don't solve the humanitarian crisis they are part of a wider plan which does at least attempt to, and infact neither does taking in the refugees (unless all the millions upon millions are taken, which no one is suggesting), it solves the personal crises of those taken in but does not solve the problem.
Feel free to disagree with that stance, but just as there are those most definitely on the right (I cannot think I am given all the times I defended Ed M as going to be ok as PM) who's views dofit yours perfectly on this issue, just because there are those on the right getting rattled who's views do not, does not mean those views are without merit automatically, nor the thing they oppose can escape criticism if it is presented as something it is not, that is, a solution to the causes of the humanitarian crisis (and without solving the cause, the crisis cannot be solved).
Embarked clearly means got on the boat. All the evidence is that they are not taking boats from Syria to Greece but are embarking in Turkey. Or in the case of those from North Africa in Libya. Unless you think they sailed across the desert from Gambia on boats?
Ah, so your the one making snide comments now? You still haven't explained how my original comment was snide, btw. I assumed embarked meant to go on a journey in generally, not that it specifically meant on a aircraft or a boat. But nonetheless, as I said to @kle4 the jist of my point remains: what happens to these people once they get back to Turkey? Do they get put in camps, or then back into Syria? Neither of which solves the humanitarian problem.
Those on the Right are really rattled today, and in fact just rattled in general when anyone dares to criticise their POV and how they see the world.
Sorry. My assumption that you were being snide was based on my equally incorrect assumption that you actually knew what you were talking about rather than just thrashing around in ignorance. Clearly I was incorrect in that assumption.
And encouraging yet more migration will also do nothing to solve the humanitarian problem. Indeed I am of the opinion that people like you, who blindly call for us to accept these migrants if they survive the journey across the sea, will very soon have blood on your hands as your actions encourage yet more dangerous migration and so result in yet more unnecessary deaths.
Given that you dismissed me as ignorant from your first reply to me, I somehow doubt that you've ever thought I knew what I was talking about. And again, you're being rather snide too.
And I am of the opinion that people will take these dangerous journeys across to Europe no matter what. I feel that the idea that simply saying 'NO' to the refugees is not going to stop these journeys. Unless we make the Middle East a habitable and safe place, nothing will stop these refugees from coming here. Obviously accepting them isn't the only thing we should do, but it's a start.
Embarked clearly means got on the boat. All the evidence is that they are not taking boats from Syria to Greece but are embarking in Turkey. Or in the case of those from North Africa in Libya. Unless you think they sailed across the desert from Gambia on boats?
But nonetheless, as I said to @kle4 the jist of my point remains: what happens to these people once they get back to Turkey? Do they get put in camps, or then back into Syria? Neither of which solves the humanitarian problem.
Those on the Right are really rattled today, and in fact just rattled in general when anyone dares to criticise their POV and how they see the world.
a) I'm not on the Right (economically perhaps), and b) I've said I'm happy to accept certain numbers of refugees, and c) it has been commented several times that while the camps don't solve the humanitarian crisis they are part of a wider plan which does at least attempt to, and infact neither does taking in the refugees (unless all the millions upon millions are taken, which no one is suggesting), it solves the personal crises of those taken in but does not solve the problem.
Feel free to disagree with that stance, but just as there are those most definitely on the right (I cannot think I am given all the times I defended Ed M as going to be ok as PM) who's views dofit yours perfectly on this issue, just because there are those on the right getting rattled who's views do not, does not mean those views are without merit automatically, nor the thing they oppose can escape criticism if it is presented as something it is not, that is, a solution to the causes of the humanitarian crisis (and without solving the cause, the crisis cannot be solved).
I wasn't talking about you! See my previous response to you. I'm talking about those, that in the main have got all angry at my post. You haven't.
If you wanted more sympathy then these shouldn't have happened:
Endless lies from governments about controlling immigration. Establishment tolerance of lack of integration and criminal activity of immigrant groups. The negatives of immigration concentrated among working class communities. Endless accusations of racism at anyone upon whom immigration was having a negative effect. Holy than thou attitudes from privileged people who suffered none of those negative effects.
Everyone has a threshold at which they say 'no more' and many have long since reached that point.
Those that condemn them will have their own threshold point, very often at a lower level than those they take such pleasure in condemning.
There's a difference between economic migration and refugees. If people are taking out their upset at economic migration on refugees, then that says more about them then anything else.
And on a threshold, as I said before in the post-war era this country has previous for not liking immigration. It's hardly as if there was a load of good-will for those coming to this country to begin with.
Most of the 'refugees' are themselves economic migrants - the prevalence of young men among the 'refugees' is always a good indication.
As to thresholds perhaps I should have explained myself better - I'm not talking about national thresholds but each individual person's threshold.
Its very easy to say 'let them all in' if you're not personally negatively affected but people tend to change their minds very fast once they start to become personally affected.
On your first point, yes but there are still a refugee. When making the distinction, I was referring to those who are purely economic migrants.
I'm not saying let them all in; just some. I lived quite a bit of my childhood in London, and went to schools where many children from immigrant backgrounds attended. It did not affect my life negatively. But then my grandparents are immigrants, so maybe that makes my view more biased.
This is when all the lies told by governments about immigration now become so damaging.
From 'only 10-15,000 Eastern European migrants' to 'British Jobs For British Workers' to 'no ifs no buts' immigration pledges.
Trust has gone.
....
Surely the government would decide the figure, and how it should be managed.
But when you have Germany saying 'let them all in' and then demanding other countries take however many it sees fit then the UK government is not making the decisions as to how many, who and how it is to be done.
'And I am of the opinion that people will take these dangerous journeys across to Europe no matter what. '
Not if we follow the Australian example of returning the boats to their ports of exit.
Yes, but Australia wasn't facing such a huge refugee crisis as we are now. And that method does not really provide a solution to the humanitarian crisis, either.
Comments
Rather like all this metric nonsense.
Not sure if this has been cited but an interesting argument from dreadful old leftie Sam Bowman from the quasi-Marxist Adam Smith Institute:
http://www.cityam.com/223608/accepting-more-refugees-not-just-right-thing-do-it-d-be-good-us-too
Even arguing for the relaxation of the laws that prevent asylum seekers from finding work for 12 months as a crime prevention tool - who'd have thunk it ?
I'm not sure what to make of the Cameron pledge - the thought of him and George Osborne walking round the refugee camps in Turkey selecting which of the poor unfortunates look like suitable candidates for resettlement to Britain is a shade disturbing.
Welcome though it is, we remain on the horns of the dilemma as to how to deal with the Syrian Diaspora in the medium term. Giving the refugees a reason not to come to Europe has to be balanced with giving them a reason to stay close to Syria and ensuring the camps are as comfortable as possible.
Ultimately, the solution to this problem is not walling ourselves behind our prosperity and abandoning the rest of the world to misery - the answer is to export our prosperity and stability to the places that don't have it now. That means force and investment, punishment and employment, order and opportunities.
Call it a Marshall Plan (which it isn't) but restoring order and stability and by definition prosperity to Tripoli, Damascus and elsewhere seems to me to be the answer and we (and that means the EU) can't do it alone - it needs the US, Russia, China and the Gulf States to play their part in the economic, social and political reconstruction of the region and that has to include not only a political settlement in Syria but a settlement for Israel, Iran, Palestine and all parties.
And your latter part is incorrect if, as is sensible, he thought Germany's approach totally unsuitable for the UK.
On Cameron, I'm referring simply to the concept of taking in refugees, not necessarily the German approach. Cameron did not just dismiss the German approach, he actively said that taking in refugees was not the solution. If he had an issue merely with Germany's method, he would have simply criticised that, as opposed to criticising taking in refugees.
Do you not remember Mary
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls-p0xbGUJQ
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34142695
The Schools system was in danger of collapse.
Thousands of people were homeless and, or, living in sub standard and over crowded accommodation.
There are not enough GPs
Food banks are growing at a fast rate because people are starving .
That the number of children living in poverty is rising.
Not enough jobs for young people
The old are dying from neglect because the pensions are too low.
The pensioners are getting too much from the state.
So..let us take in a few thousand refugees from the Middle East.
Not enough say the lefties..we have room for several hundred thousands
Sounds about right so far.
I think we have almost reached peak insanity levels
Cameron was right that taking in refugees is not the solution to the problem of people dying trying to get to Europe. But it can simultaneously be true that by focusing purely on the cause of refugees (we'll leave the migrant issue aside for the moment), yes, he was not offering a solution to the same problem that Germany wants fixed. Or, rather, the problem they want moved off our tv screens, even if it is only temporary, that is, the pressures caused by a massive build up of refugees at the borders.
Endless lies from governments about controlling immigration.
Establishment tolerance of lack of integration and criminal activity of immigrant groups.
The negatives of immigration concentrated among working class communities.
Endless accusations of racism at anyone upon whom immigration was having a negative effect.
Holy than thou attitudes from privileged people who suffered none of those negative effects.
Everyone has a threshold at which they say 'no more' and many have long since reached that point.
Those that condemn them will have their own threshold point, very often at a lower level than those they take such pleasure in condemning.
I have to say @DavidL's post was brilliant (FPT). If only more of the Conservative party had his outlook in general, the country would probably be in a better place. I particularly agreed with his assessment that some of the statements on the refugees are close to offensive.
I agree David L is usually spot on regarding social issues.
And on a threshold, as I said before in the post-war era this country has previous for not liking immigration. It's hardly as if there was a load of good-will for those coming to this country to begin with.
' EDF has admitted that the construction of Britain's first new nuclear power plant in decades has been delayed.
The French energy company said Hinkley Point C in Somerset will not start generating power in 2023 as planned.
The OECD report shows that the cost of a nuclear plant in Britain is projected to be almost three times higher than in China or South Korea. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34149392
Meanwhile:
' The owners of Eggborough Power Station have said it will stop generating power in March 2016, subject to consultations with staff and "government bodies". '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-34127897
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/579780/Police-raids-benefit-scheme-migrants
"The sums run into millions and are just the tip of the iceberg on what is a much wider problem."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/348877/Jailed-illegal-migrant-in-3-8m-benefit-fraud
“This was no less than a criminal industry, with simple and eye-watering criminality designed to maximise the loss to the public."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12638060
"It is believed the criminal gangs which lured Anna to London are specifically targeting the UK."
and any amount of equivalent cases...
In fact i am more familiar with the 1977 version of God Save The Queen than the current National Anthem
On the BBC link - one Polish criminal gang does not represent every single economic migrant that wants to come here.
Where he was probably wrong was thinking the public weren't willing to take on the cost of accepting more refugees even though it won't fix the problem of them coming and dying, when in fact it appears that currently, it seems, they are and we are.
And I don't see how they wouldn't have embarked in Syria. They come from Syria.
Hasnt most of this story been well and truly aired. If any one of us was to guess his identity, i think we would all get be 100% right in our guess.
The person involved is a greasy as a petrol based lubricant.
Lest we forget, when Assad was in full control, this problem didn't exist. Provided you didn't tread on his toes, Assad's Syria was by all accounts a very pleasant place to live.
Clinton 46, Trump 44
Clinton 46, Bush 42
Clinton 44, Carson 44
Clinton 47, Rubio 43
Clinton 45, Fiorina 43
Clinton 47, Cruz 42
Biden 47, Trump 41
Biden 44, Bush 41
Sanders 42, Trump 43
Sanders 40, Bush 41
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90315.pdf
As to thresholds perhaps I should have explained myself better - I'm not talking about national thresholds but each individual person's threshold.
Its very easy to say 'let them all in' if you're not personally negatively affected but people tend to change their minds very fast once they start to become personally affected.
As far as I'm aware there hasn't been a single scientific opinion poll to back up this claim.
"If we want to stop the horror, we have to stop the boats" http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/09/daniel-hannan-mep-i-saw-the-migrant-crisis-first-hand-theres-no-way-the-eu-can-solve-it.html …
Adjusted Well @Adjustedwell 40m40 minutes ago
Why don't Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq go to countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, instead of going to Christian Europe ?
I'm not saying let them all in; just some. I lived quite a bit of my childhood in London, and went to schools where many children from immigrant backgrounds attended. It did not affect my life negatively. But then my grandparents are immigrants, so maybe that makes my view more biased.
Looks like the East are fed up with Merkel's antics and are now in open revolt. Maybe they'll think that joining the EU was not such a clever idea, after all.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/
1) Take in more refugees, and that's it - helps those that make it, does not help stop more being created or more dying on the way. That can in no way be said to solve the crisis,though it will lance the boil of it for a time
2) Spend money on housing them closer to the conflict zone, try to stabilise the area and get more culturally suitable nations for refugee and host nation to take on more (it should not all be down to the immediate neighbours of Jordan et al). - This at least tries to prevent more being created and dying on a perilous journey, but will take years and years to work, if it ever will. It attempts to solve the crisis
By taking in more refugees while, I hope, still pointing out it doesn't actually fix anything, we will now essentially be trying a combination of 1) and 2).
What I will not do is condemn countries trying only 1) or 2), because neither is without flaws, or devoid of compassion for that matter.
This debate seems to have made people allergic to taking a stance other than between two extremes,and I don't think that's right - I'm glad we're taking in more refugees, we probably can handle it, and it provides some relief at least, but criticising not taking in refugees for notsolvingthe humanitarian crisis makes no sense either, when the other solution sure as hell doesn't except in the most superficial of ways (if very meaningfully for those lucky few)
New Thread: Andy is crap special
Those on the Right are really rattled today, and in fact just rattled in general when anyone dares to criticise their POV and how they see the world.
From 'only 10-15,000 Eastern European migrants' to 'British Jobs For British Workers' to 'no ifs no buts' immigration pledges.
Trust has gone.
As to letting some but not all in - who is to decide and how is it to be managed and what is to be done with those who come anyway even when you tell them they're not wanted ? Once you start to give way then that only encourages more to come and more criminals and terrorists to exploit the situation. And the people who then lose out are the deprived in this country and the genuine deserving refugees.
Europe sells the hangman's rope - again - James Lewis
by James Lewis
Today Europe has suicidally imported more than 50 million Muslims -- just as Obama wants us to do here. With America failing to provide international leadership, Europe has simply collapsed and surrendered -- hoping the crocodile will eat it last.
For Bed-time reading.
And encouraging yet more migration will also do nothing to solve the humanitarian problem. Indeed I am of the opinion that people like you, who blindly call for us to accept these migrants if they survive the journey across the sea, will very soon have blood on your hands as your actions encourage yet more dangerous migration and so result in yet more unnecessary deaths.
Feel free to disagree with that stance, but just as there are those most definitely on the right (I cannot think I am given all the times I defended Ed M as going to be ok as PM) who's views dofit yours perfectly on this issue, just because there are those on the right getting rattled who's views do not, does not mean those views are without merit automatically, nor the thing they oppose can escape criticism if it is presented as something it is not, that is, a solution to the causes of the humanitarian crisis (and without solving the cause, the crisis cannot be solved).
And I am of the opinion that people will take these dangerous journeys across to Europe no matter what. I feel that the idea that simply saying 'NO' to the refugees is not going to stop these journeys. Unless we make the Middle East a habitable and safe place, nothing will stop these refugees from coming here. Obviously accepting them isn't the only thing we should do, but it's a start.
'And I am of the opinion that people will take these dangerous journeys across to Europe no matter what. '
Not if we follow the Australian example of returning the boats to their ports of exit.