Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria: a call to alms?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria: a call to alms?
One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.
0
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria: a call to alms?
One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.
Comments
https://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/more-than-40-councils-offer-sanctuary-to-syria-refugees-11364001956870
This is one area where I do sympathize with politicians. That some people were warning against backing the rebels in Syria shouldn't deter our politicians from admitting that the best thing we can do might involve backing Assad. They should certainly pay no attention to stupid lefties who would argue against a military intervention whatever the circumstances.
There's a big surprise - NOT!
Let's think this through.
Say we support Assad, who is also getting serious support from both Iran and Russia. Say he manages to push IS out of Syria. What happens then? Do we support him chasing IS into Iraq, or do we let that organisation just sit there and wait for its next opportunity, either in neighbouring countries or far away (e.g. Yemen).
Then there is a much bigger issue: what about the other rebel groups? al Nusra can go hang as far as I'm concerned, but there are many different groups. If Assad's position becomes stronger, he will want to defeat them. Do we really think we could get him to give the Kurds an autonomous region? And if not, they would have to surrender to him, and there would be severe retribution. How do we protect the Kurds from a vengeful Assad?
Finally, there is the fact we would be supporting someone who many organisations are accusing of war crimes, and who used chemical weapons against his own people. He is not as bad as IS, but that's like saying AIDS is not as bad as Ebola.
I could only support this if Assad and his family were removed as head of state. Let them go to Russia to live, and put in place someone else senior in the regime who we could deal with, and preferably a non-Alawite (although such a person might not exist). This person would also probably have blood on their hands, but less; however he would also have to be acceptable to Iran and Russia.
Then again, such changes have not always worked in the past. However it would be better than another attempt at deba'athification regime change.
There are no good answers: supporting Assad is one of the worse answers, especially if we do not sort out the Kurdish question.
Is someone mucking about with Vanilla in the background?
But seriously, those three posts were all centred, without tags. Odd.
Apparently I'm smarter than 94% of the population (not Dr. Rob for nothing!), although my life satisfaction is 24% (surprised it was that high!).
Unfortunately, it didn't identify my political leanings as PB Tory or, more specifically, Official Dry but not Obsessed with the Gays and Europe New Tory Party (Monarchist).
I think someone must've been tickling Vanilla.
Wise words Mr Herdson – Regrettably I see no immediate end to civil strife which has beset Syria for the past 5 years, or the humanitarian repercussion of which Europe is experiencing as a result.
Meanwhile, the refugee crisis must be addressed, and as you rightly point out, now is the time for ‘politicians earn their money’ – Fortunately the PM understands the challenges ahead and has made some very sensible proposals this week IMO; my advice would be to ignore the hullabaloo from the crowd and remember the words of Rudyard Kipling:
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you.
Bullying Chilcot's threat to Iraq war families as inquiry boss tells them 'take me to court over delay and you'll pay the legal costs'
Sir John Chilcot accused of resorting to 'bully-boy tactics' by families
They want judge to order Iraq inquiry chairman to fix deadline for report
Claim Sir John is trying to frighten them into dropping legal action
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223056/Bullying-Chilcot-s-threat-Iraq-war-families-telling-court-delay-ll-pay-legal-costs.html#ixzz3kqG2FDVp
I think Cameron has played a dreadful hand about as well as it could be. How long before the tabloids feature another migrant on their front page in tragic circumstances but not sympathetically?
As ever the danger with "Something must be done!" Is we end up with "This is something- we must do it".
The Syrian people have overwhelmingly chosen to stay close to home, so that's where we should offer most help - as we currently are. And those we are helping in the UK are the vulnerable- not the young and fit who can bribe their way here.
On the fall out from Harvey Proctor's robust defence, I wonder if Labour could be heading for nightmares in both the leader and deputy leader, Mr Watson having lead the charge in Parliament on behalf of Exaro news and some of the alleged victims?
On a frivolous note maybe we should put a few notices and billboards up in and around Calais saying UK is accepting migrants now. Please report to the application centre in the camps situated in countries bordering Syria. Any migrant entering UK from mainland Europe will be deported to the last safe country they were in and refused any future entry tui UK.
The EU and the UK government has been very sloooooow to react, which has contributed to the sense of 'crisis' and catching up.
Mr. Jonathan, many countries in Europe deciding that enforcing border controls doesn't matter has been bizarre to see.
Mr. H, indeed. Faith in Chilcott must be near rock bottom, and his apparent threats to the families of dead/wounded service personnel will not exactly burnish his credentials.
The lack of trust will be the inevitable media reporting as it sees it and spin from those involved before and after publishing.
The near total absence of coverage regarding differential spending on aid is another sign, by its absence, of the feeble reporting.
Anyway, Mr. Felix (2), it's almost as if multiple different countries don't work with a one size fits all nonsense approach to anything, whether it's monetary policy or the way refugees/immigrants are handled.
Or, to rephrase, the EU's basic set-up is ridiculous.
The petition demanding a parliamentary debate gathered over 400k signatures in a few days. That's quite remarkable and I don't think you can put that down to "virtue signalling".
Merkel's policy is deranged. It'll encourage dangerous journeys, a free for all (including economic migrants who are breaking the law), and enrich people smugglers (which include ISIS).
There's been much criticism over this so-called 'do something' brigade. But such a distinction doesn't appear to actually exist, anyway. For the most part those on the Left and Right in Westminster appear to agree that something must be done, but disagree on what actually should be done. After all, if you're endorsing Cameron's policy of accepting refugees into Britain, then you are in effect endorsing a 'doing something' position. It's quite weird though, how many appear to have U-turned on the previous position that we shouldn't be accepting any refugees, and that we have no obligation to.
I also don't see the need to 'do something' as an inherently emotional response. It is also logical to try do find a solution to the crisis.
I also don't see why we can't both help those refugees who are in Jordan and Lebanon, as well those in Europe. Both groups, in various ways have been through utter hell. But it's an interesting point: that most Syrians have stayed in the Middle East, which rather counters some of the previous critical assessments of their motives, as simply wanting/feeling entitled to a Western lifestyle, as opposed to being in a desperate situation. It also counters the idea prevalent on PB, that no Middle Eastern country is doing anything. While some need to face up to their moral obligations to take in refugees, some already have. I suspect they'll end up taking in far more than Europe, when all is said and done.
There has been much criticism of those on Facebook, and those on Twitter, but it is these kind of people who, when we look back will be the trigger for politicians finding solutions. Certainly, I suspect it was Cameron's sense (rightly or wrongly) that there was a public desire to help the refugees, that led to a change in policy. A contrast to many who were saying that aid in itself was enough, and that we had no obligation, nor should we do anything else to help.
It's a clear double standard.
I don't think many here have said Middle Eastern states are doing nothing. There have been many mentions of the large numbers in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. It's also entirely correct to say other regional powers are doing very little to help.
I do think some will oppose us taking any migrants. If we are to take them, however, Cameron's approach is intelligent. Merkel's is moronic.
Many have called on Middle Eastern states to take in refugees, and asked why aren't Middle Eastern states doing their fair share. While ignoring that some of them are indeed doing their fair share.
And I think I've over-egged the debate on the Cameron v Merkel approach, so I'll say no more than that.
Just because Cameron is taking in refugees doesn't mean the public support it.
It's truly a sign from a greater power that these cash strapped organisations can pause from closing libraries and other public services, and find the extra money to do this.
'Bless them all' cry the thousands on housing waiting lists, for it is truly a miracle.
I think you'll find the Nelson touch isn't just restricted to one political party.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34161075
A fair few people on council waiting lists that stretch from here to Narnia will be wondering why these places weren't available to them just a week ago.
Whilst I can understand the logic and reasoning behind taking some refugees from the camps in the ME I am not so sure that part of the story will sell or can be sustained. Given sanctuary to those who have made the journey is perhaps a flawed policy but it is a reality. This means thousands of immigrants a day are pouring into the EU. Are we really going to be able to hold a line which says this is Italy's, Greece's and the Balkan countries' problem, not ours, because geography puts us in the north? Even if we could can we legitimately argue that it is fair to do so?
I think Merkel's policy and announcement was a mistake but it is done. We now see Austria saying it will accept the marchers from Hungary, a country that has become the lefty's new hate figure but is in fact simply overwhelmed by the challenges that it is facing.
Europe now has in the low hundreds of thousands of people here who cannot practically get sent back to Syria or Eritrea. We can fantasise about bribing countries like Egypt and Libya to imprison them for us but no one can seriously believe that is going to end well. The question our government has to face is do we try to dump the problem back on the front line states (are we seriously going to try to send immigrants back to Italy or Greece, let alone the Balkans when they are dealing with a problem a hundred times ours already) or do we offer to help them with the very practical problems that they have? Are we seriously going to try to maintain the line that the first safe country these people reached was Turkey and seek to send them back to a country already feeding and housing 1.7m? The law must bow to reality.
I think that we should accept that whether we should have got where we are or not there is a real practical problem involving the low hundreds of thousands of people in Europe and we need to help. We should point out that if other EU countries had spent as much as we have on making the camps in neighbouring countries tolerable this problem would not be as great and we should urge the EU to follow the British lead here. But we have to help deal with those who are here that we cannot return. I expect our policy to evolve this week. There is no choice.
I didn't like some of the media attacks on Brown too, some were a bit too personal. Besides, there was more than enough material on his leadership of the country to criticise!
As for the mass illegal migration, we opted out of free movement. We never wanted to be in Schengen. That is the responsibility and the decision most of the rest of the EU has made, and it is not our job to clear up that mess any more than the failure of the eurozone is our fault or responsibility.
On fairness: Germany has a projected decline of population of around 2-3% during a period (I think to 2080) for which out population is forecast to rise by 9%, and we already have annual net migration of 330,000. On top of that, we're spending far more than Germany on aid camps.
The idea we aren't doing our share is a lie. We're paying more than most of the EU, Cameron's policy is sensible, and Merkel's encourages criminal activity. The failure here is the stupidity of Schengen.
Merkel's policy is more than a mistake. It's a clarion call for anyone from North Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans or further afield who wants to live in the EU to come on over. I fear it'll prove a horrendous error of judgement.
start there.
And Good morning to all.
It's because I'm usually on the right, which leads to people thinking I'm Conservative (and I did vote for them last time, heroically slaying Balls). But I've voted for four other parties in the past, and imagine I'll vote for others in the near future too.
If Cameron wanted us to accept 120,000 or 240,000 (Cooper's monthly total over a year, or the Green position) I'd oppose it.
It's also fundamentally different to take people from camps adjacent to the conflict and just waving through illegal migration.
I did not know you had a promotion to PM.
Exactly. David Cameron's position is now one which involves taking in refugees into this country - so in other words, the public support taking in refugees. A policy, that many some days ago were rejecting. Not just simply Merkel's approach, but actively the idea we should be taking in any refugees.
That's quite a leap in logic.
Just because Cameron is taking in refugees doesn't mean the public support it.
Apparently, a poll has found that 51% support Cameron's position on this crisis. Cameron's position is now that of taking in some refugees. Ergo, my conclusion that the public support taking in refugees.
No - the public support Cameron's approach to the refugee crisis. He has explicitly said that to follow the European line encourages illegal people-smuggling. Labour's leadership contenders have managed to make themselves look even more stupid this week than before. Quite an achievement.
And Cameron's approach ulimately comes down to accepting some refugees, too. It may not be accepting refugees from Europe, but from the borders of Syria - but fundamentally, the approach is one that is accepting refugees coming to the UK now. Labour leadership contenders have been calling on Britain to welcome refugees to the country, so rather than looking foolish - it looks like everyone now appears to agree on that one, important thing. Labour wants refugees to come here, and now so does David Cameron.
You really are being quite silly peddling that line. The difference in tone and substance is enormous - and Labour is back on the old line of 'let everyone in' days before electing a peacenik throwback from the 50s/60s as leader. If you are unable to spot the problem with this then so be it.
The best thing to do would be to formalise the refugee camps adjacent to Syria, improve their sanitation and facilities, build a jetty and a dock, and land all those rescued in future by Operation Triton back there.
The practical problem is what does Europe do with the tens of thousands in camps in Greece, Italy, Hungary etc? We will end up helping and would do better to do so with some grace.
Certainly, there are disagreements over how many refugees to take in. Cooper, and the other Labour leadership candidates would want us to take in quite a lot more than Cameron is probably willingly too. But on the basic principle of whether we take in refugees or not, they are now on the same page. I don't deny it's different taking people from camps, to refugees from Europe - but is still nonetheless a position of taking in refugees.
@screwlabour: Twitter seems to be polarised:one usual crowd thinks every single migrant wants to behead them & the other crowd wants to live with them all
There's a hefty difference between 4,000 and 120,000-240,000. Not to mention it appears Cooper et al. want us to take them the Schengen/Merkellian quagmire.
Of course, that ends with most on the Left declaring "no limit", which leaves them nowhere to go in any sensible discussion on the matter.
But as I've said before the German and our actions are focused on different problems of this crisis. I've banged on about it and enough so will resolve to keep quiet.
Let's break this down. Firstly, what problem(s) are we trying to solve?
Unfortunately, this is a problem where emotion rules. Will accepting more immigrants solve the problem? No, because anything that encourages more travelling in the present circumstances will make things worse.
There are things we can do - clamp down on traffickers and finance better camps - but these are gradual. Emotion wants what emotion wants even if it is counter-productive.
What people really want is to feel better about themselves - whether it's productive or counter-productive.
The best analogy is giving a sick patient medicine that has awful side effects. But you can't stop it because nothing else is going to work quickly anyway - and it's the right thing to do.
To be honest, the only remedy for the virtue-signalling is to transport anyone who wants to come in a safe means of transport. Don't think about the cost or consequences, you heartless bastards.
I'd be in favour of selective immigration. Welcome the ones who come for the right reason, be that brown, black or green.
For instance, what about the Kurdish problem I mentioned below?
I'd hate to see what it'd do with my Twitter account!
We know migrants headed for the EU due to Schengen, the lack of borders. We never wanted that, and we opted out of it. And now Merkel's announced a free for all. We never wanted that either.
If she wants to be Saint Angela, fine. But she has no right to dictate policy to the UK.
Based on your principle the UK has already taken in Syrian refugees to the tune of a couple of hundred, so nothing has actually changed by your yardstick if you don't think numbers are important.
On the other hand I'd argue it's the scale of the problem which is hitting the headlines and which is provoking the crisis. And the principle at stake is "how many" not some or none.
I don't understand this psychology about not wanting to engage with middle-eastern countries for fear of upsetting them, but bending over backwards in the EU ourselves to all and sundry.
Germany and Sweden have declared their policy and made their bed. They must now lie in it. If I were them I would review each and every case and deport those who are not genuine Syrian refugees (which is at least half of them) back to MENA.
It's wrong to think that he will use any new force just against IS. He'll be wanting to regain total power, or as much as the puppeteers in Tehran and Moscow allow.
So how do we protect the Kurds?
Slightly off-topic, but in light of recent events, I do hope that Ed Miliband is feeling proud of his actions of two years ago this morning. Two articles from Dan Hodges are worth revisiting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10277706/Syria-was-the-last-straw-Ive-now-quit-the-Labour-Party.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100233350/miliband-was-governed-by-narrow-political-interests-not-the-national-interests-or-those-of-syrian-children/
Hodges was wrong on one thing - without Britain, the notoriously indecisive Obama did not feel able to take any sort of aggressive military action until it was far too late - over a year after it might have helped (and it still doesn't include a no-fly zone).
Miliband's legacy from 11 years of public life - a failed climate change treaty, a ruined Labour party, a Conservative majority, and dead children in Syria. As is often said, the road to hell is paved with the very best intentions.
Well, we clearly disagree on what principles are at stake. Because I believe the most important is whether we accept refugees or not. Numbers can be decided by the government.
You'd be better off asking Plato's Pussy!
It's a change in action, but the actual reasoning given remains, there's been no 180 there, the focus will still be where he wanted it - aid, camps etc - they've just added to it in the face of pressure.
@Morris_Dancer For reasons I've explained in previous threads, I don't see Merkel pouring petrol over the fire. I don't believe that anything she could have said or done, would have stopped those making the journey to Europe. Really, only stabilising Syria can do that for sure. Does your average Syrian migrant really know what Schengen is? This plays into the idea these refugees are these calculating, cunning people. I suppose you agree with the assessment that Schengen caused the crisis, but then I disagree: I would attribute some of the blame to Western involvement in the Middle East, and how that has de-stabilised the region even further than it was before, paving the way for this crisis.
However, at the moment the immediate crisis demands some unpalatable choices:
1) We need to deal urgently with the refugee situation. Therefore, we either sort matters out in Syria or we accept refugees. The likely consequences of doing the latter (the march of the far right across Europe - watch to see whether Golden Dawn do well in Greece as a possible harbinger) means we have to do the former.
2) To do so, we have the choice of working with Assad, or with Isis. We cannot work with Isis, therefore we must for the moment swallow our loathing and disgust and work with Assad. We could do it indirectly, possibly even via Iran, but that is (a) a cowardly solution and (b) would give Iran, not us, any possible leverage over Assad should Isis be defeated.
Those are of course both medium term solutions (at best) and solving the migrant crisis now is urgent. It sounds horribly cynical, but has anyone suggested payments to Greece for each migrant it takes, in terms of its debt to the ECB or the Bundesbank being written off? Because it occurs to me that that might go a long way to resolving two major crises at once.
What I find most depressing about the Something Must Be Done brigade is that their Outrage Bus stops a lot on its route. So the same people/media who are demanding action without thought, will be doing the same when the next NHS In Crisis or whatever pops up.
The public have remarkably short memories when to comes to what they demanded two months ago, and don't have much sympathy for political weathervanes. I'm very pleased that Mr Cameron has stuck to his guns, and the plan to lift refugees who are least able to escape/played by the rules to safety.
Having caught up on developments overnight - I see 4000 have now arrived in Austria. Sky intv a young man who left Syria 5 YEARS ago. He's clearly an economic migrant and said he didn't want to stay in Hungary because they wouldn't give him a free house, money and a job - but Germany/Austria would.
I want to shake Mrs Merkel - she's lit the blue touchpaper and all her neighbours can do is try to 'corridor' migrants to Germany as quickly as possible.