Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
The Telegraph understands that when McFadyen repeatedly complained to Mr Watson that politicians were taking control of the supposedly independent inquiry into institutionalised sex abuse, Mr Watson finally snapped and posted the Twitter message. Mr Watson then deleted it.
A source close to Mr McFadyen told The Telegraph: “He has nothing to do with survivors. This is all to do with Tom Watson and Tom Watson’s ego. Tom Watson has used this as a party political football.”
Off topic I think that Antifrank has a point in that the current policy of only taking those in the refugee camps around Syria simply does not help with the hundreds of thousands already in the EU and that we have a duty to help not only those immigrants but the EU countries struggling to deal with them.
I take the point that making rose gardens for those already in Europe encourages more to come, people trafficking and death but it seems to me that it is every bit as legitimate to take appropriate cases from those in camps in Italy and Greece as those in Lebanon and Jordan. I think we need to do both.
Then what?
I can see the case for helping out if we're dealing with finite numbers. But, so long as Italy and the Balkan countries wave through an unlimited number of people to Northern Europe, I'm quite reluctant.
On topic I genuinely hope there are no winners in this market. Labour needs its sane MPs to stay inside the Labour party and fight for its continued existence. To do that they need to organise and, frankly, stop being so pathetic. (In fairness this accusation is not really directed at most on this list but the nodding donkeys who followed McDonnell).
That means the Corbyn's whipping operation should be given as much attention as he gave anyone else's. It means getting organised. It means putting a different Labour position forward in the Commons, the media, in PLPs, everywhere it can be. Sane Labour lost an election battle to Corbyn with some very ordinary generals. They do not need to accept that they lost the entire war.
Sooner or later the chaos and disaster that the Corbyn/McDonnell leadership is raining down on the party will impinge on the membership and minds will start to change. This process can be accelerated if there is an alternative being espoused from within the party by serious people.
Please explain why you think that Labour voted for Corbyn. If you have a clue.
I honestly struggle with that because I frankly don't get it. I would be interested to hear the views of those that did. Nick has sort of explained but I find his reasoning on this difficult to follow.
It is obvious that none of the other candidates inspired. They were not willing to spell out what they stood for. Liz Kendall was a modest exception to this but her ideas never got beyond a sound bite. I don't think the majority who voted for him really understood the extent to which he was really anti British. There was a desire for simplistic solutions and he promised them. As the others did not challenge him until way too late he got away with that.
Underlying the vote is the more fundamental problem for Labour: what does it offer in an age of austerity? Austerity will not end when the budget deficit goes (if it does), it needs to address the debt.
I think there is much that Labour can do on social mobility, the efficiency and effectiveness of public services, structural investment planning (where Osborne has of course pinched their idea because it was a good one) and housing but it has to be done in a context where money is extremely short. This requires the sort of hard thinking that I don't believe Corbyn is even capable of conceiving let alone doing.
Corbyn should be on the list. He's rebelled against all Labour leaders to date.
*Claps*
The first party leader since David Lloyd George in 1931 to resign the whip of his own party while still leader? That would be an achievement to celebrate!
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
What do you propose to do to the poor in this country who might well be adversely affected by massive levels of immigration from these countries?
In the context of the numbers of immigrants Britain already gets, the numbers talked about by the bishops (50,000 instead of 20,000) are not massive.
It's well over a doubling of the proposed numbers, in a country that's already been put under pressure by unprecedented levels of immigration over the last decade (for the purposes of clarity, something I myself have benefited from).
It's an extra 6,000 a year in a country that got 600,000 immigrants last year.
You highlight the problem excellently.
So go on: what would be your solution to the migration problem that faces the UK and wider EU? What would be your platform of policies to fix the issues?
I don't see immigration as a problem but as a symptom of a successful country. The economy is doing well currently, we have record employment and we have a dynamic society. We need to invest in infrastructure, but life in Britain is good.
It's great to get the point of view of someone who so clearly understands the views of the bulk of the British people about immigration
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
The Turks have no legal obligation to accept refugees from Syria. So that idea doesn't work.
I think you will find that they do. In fact, every country which has signed the relevant treaty/agreement [ from which the UNHCR was born ] has to accept refugees.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
Emotion emotion emotion - why bother to tax your brain thinking what the best solution would be when you can just indulge your emotions and accuse everyone else of being heartless?
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
It shows the paucity of your side's argument that it can not deal with criticism other than by saying "yeah but you're just a Nazi if you disagree with me!" This is the sort of muddy headed intolerant approach to political thinking that made the crisis so bad in the first place. As I said, it is the view that cares more about announcing one's moral superiority rather than helping the greatest number of people.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
Personally? No.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.
How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?
I pay my taxes. In case of national emergency, I would accept billeting. Since we are in nothing like a national emergency, it's a question asked by arseholes.
I see when you lose the argument you resort to personal abuse - how very corbynite
If you believe the question has the remotest relevance to what we should do about the migrant crisis, I'm afraid you are an arsehole. The willingness or otherwise of those arguing we should take in more migrants to house the migrants personally cannot be relevant to what we actually should do.
I note the repeated abuse from someone who should know better. Note also it is not returned. I think your irritation suggests that your willingness to contribute to your favoured solution is really quite limited to paying your taxes.
Choose your preferred epithet for asking an irrelevant and highly personal question to make a cheap and meaningless point. I'd say that makes you an arsehole.
I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
Personally? No.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.
I remember that Thatcher's interpretation (controversial at the time) of the parable of the good samaritan was that one had to become prosperous so one could be charitable, a qualification that the UK in the comparative wealth of nations has unarguably attained. Remarkably, or perhaps not, it appears that Thacher's sprogs possess less milk of human kindness than the great she-elephant herself.
Off topic I think that Antifrank has a point in that the current policy of only taking those in the refugee camps around Syria simply does not help with the hundreds of thousands already in the EU and that we have a duty to help not only those immigrants but the EU countries struggling to deal with them.
I take the point that making rose gardens for those already in Europe encourages more to come, people trafficking and death but it seems to me that it is every bit as legitimate to take appropriate cases from those in camps in Italy and Greece as those in Lebanon and Jordan. I think we need to do both.
Why? - far better to return those who've arrived illegally and much fairer. It has worked for Australia. You're opting for more fudge and muddle which is how Europe has got itself here in the first place.
I don't disagree that those economic migrants from safe countries should be returned wherever they are in Europe. But there are hundreds of thousands that don't meet those criteria and I think we have to help the Mediterranean countries who are being overwhelmed by this by taking some of those.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
Ah - thought it wouldn't take long.
So, smart guy, how will you return several hundred thousands who are unwilling to return ?
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
The Turks have no legal obligation to accept refugees from Syria. So that idea doesn't work.
I think you will find that they do. In fact, every country which has signed the relevant treaty/agreement [ from which the UNHCR was born ] has to accept refugees.
I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
Personally? No.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.
How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?
I pay my taxes. In case of national emergency, I would accept billeting. Since we are in nothing like a national emergency, it's a question asked by arseholes.
I see when you lose the argument you resort to personal abuse - how very corbynite
If you believe the question has the remotest relevance to what we should do about the migrant crisis, I'm afraid you are an arsehole. The willingness or otherwise of those arguing we should take in more migrants to house the migrants personally cannot be relevant to what we actually should do.
I note the repeated abuse from someone who should know better. Note also it is not returned. I think your irritation suggests that your willingness to contribute to your favoured solution is really quite limited to paying your taxes.
Choose your preferred epithet for asking an irrelevant and highly personal question to make a cheap and meaningless point. I'd say that makes you an arsehole.
And a third abusive comment to a perfectly reasonable question. You are excelling yourself in repetition but alas in imagination less so. Have a wonderful day bathed in the warm glow of your moral superiority.
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
What do you propose to do to the poor in this country who might well be adversely affected by massive levels of immigration from these countries?
In the context of the numbers of immigrants Britain already gets, the numbers talked about by the bishops (50,000 instead of 20,000) are not massive.
It's well over a doubling of the proposed numbers, in a country that's already been put under pressure by unprecedented levels of immigration over the last decade (for the purposes of clarity, something I myself have benefited from).
It's an extra 6,000 a year in a country that got 600,000 immigrants last year.
You highlight the problem excellently.
So go on: what would be your solution to the migration problem that faces the UK and wider EU? What would be your platform of policies to fix the issues?
I don't see immigration as a problem but as a symptom of a successful country. The economy is doing well currently, we have record employment and we have a dynamic society. We need to invest in infrastructure, but life in Britain is good.
Fair enough: that's an arguable position, even if I don't agree with it.
However: do you see any upper bounds for immigration? Do you think there is an upper limit to the numbers of people we can take?
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
On topic I genuinely hope there are no winners in this market. Labour needs its sane MPs to stay inside the Labour party and fight for its continued existence. To do that they need to organise and, frankly, stop being so pathetic. (In fairness this accusation is not really directed at most on this list but the nodding donkeys who followed McDonnell).
That means the Corbyn's whipping operation should be given as much attention as he gave anyone else's. It means getting organised. It means putting a different Labour position forward in the Commons, the media, in PLPs, everywhere it can be. Sane Labour lost an election battle to Corbyn with some very ordinary generals. They do not need to accept that they lost the entire war.
Sooner or later the chaos and disaster that the Corbyn/McDonnell leadership is raining down on the party will impinge on the membership and minds will start to change. This process can be accelerated if there is an alternative being espoused from within the party by serious people.
But there is no leadership. The fact that the extremely arrogant and not over-intelligent Tristram Hunt, a man who to a far greater extent than Osborne owes his position to his family's wealth and connections, is put forward as their biggest hitter demonstrates with painful clarity that for all their ordinariness, Cooper and Kendall were the best the Labour right had to offer. Looking at that list, some of them are a good deal worse. Bradshaw might do better, but he's getting on a bit and seems to have lost interest in leading. Creagh is insane. Byrne is a lightweight. The others most people will never have heard of.
Surely the real problem for Labour is that viewed with a cold eye, Corbyn wasn't actually as far off the other three in terms of leadership potential as he should have been, and that those four were, with the demise of the Milibands, Balls and to a lesser extent Alexander, the best Labour had to offer. A lot of blame might be placed on Brown for his strangulation or expropriation of talented young politicians for his own ends - but surely no political party could become that devoid of talent just because of the actions of one emotionally stunted and over-ambitious egomaniac?
Labour appears to have become a movement hollowed from the inside out. Now we are seeing that the trunk is collapsing and the branches will drop off and destroy everything near them. What's left will be chopped up for firewood - or if we're lucky, furniture for a new social democratic movement.
I accept that when you look for specific names to provide the leadership I am suggesting things become a lot more difficult.
Mr. Surbiton, people who reach Germany and keep going aren't refugees, they're migrants. Also, 80% of those migrating aren't Syrian. A majority are economic migrants (many from the Balkans).
Mr. Royale, cheers. Presumably, due to the time difference, the results will roll in (mostly) around 5-9am UK time?
Mr. Divvie, if we're judging by charity, then the UK is the largest donor to aid camps of all the European nations and second only to America globally.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
Ah - thought it wouldn't take long.
So, smart guy, how will you return several hundred thousands who are unwilling to return ?
Read the whole thread - several suggestions have been made. How do you propose to deal with those who want to break the law? I'm not sure giving them a council house and a handout is an appropriate answer.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Is there not a case for saying that those who come from countries other than Syria i.e. those from Afghanistan, Pakistan etc should be returned to those countries? They are not refugees from the Syrian civil war, after all. They can apply to enter European countries in the normal way, if they meet the criteria.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
And we've just negotiated a big deal on the refugee issue with Turkey, so that can change.
Off topic I think that Antifrank has a point in that the current policy of only taking those in the refugee camps around Syria simply does not help with the hundreds of thousands already in the EU and that we have a duty to help not only those immigrants but the EU countries struggling to deal with them.
I take the point that making rose gardens for those already in Europe encourages more to come, people trafficking and death but it seems to me that it is every bit as legitimate to take appropriate cases from those in camps in Italy and Greece as those in Lebanon and Jordan. I think we need to do both.
Why? - far better to return those who've arrived illegally and much fairer. It has worked for Australia. You're opting for more fudge and muddle which is how Europe has got itself here in the first place.
I don't disagree that those economic migrants from safe countries should be returned wherever they are in Europe. But there are hundreds of thousands that don't meet those criteria and I think we have to help the Mediterranean countries who are being overwhelmed by this by taking some of those.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Is there not a case for saying that those who come from countries other than Syria i.e. those from Afghanistan, Pakistan etc should be returned to those countries? They are not refugees from the Syrian civil war, after all. They can apply to enter European countries in the normal way, if they meet the criteria.
I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
Personally? No.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.
I remember that Thatcher's interpretation (controversial at the time) of the parable of the good samaritan was that one had to become prosperous so one could be charitable, a qualification that the UK in the comparative wealth of nations has unarguably attained. Remarkably, or perhaps not, it appears that Thacher's sprogs possess less milk of human kindness than the great she-elephant herself.
I do not know what she would say today though. Why would she be different from all the PBTories ?
But historically Britain has absorbed huge amounts of immigration. During the pogroms in Russia. Just before WW2. East African Asians. And, let's not forget around 750k Polish and East Europeans lust 10 years ago.
The migration in the 50's from black and brown Commonweatlh countries [ euphemistically called "new" commonwealth ] was slightly different. They were recruited.
Spain had a huge influx of people from West Africa a few years ago. They dealt with it by returning people to their point of embarkation, and providing very generous aid packages to the region. I think that's the kind of approach we should be adopting.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
The Turks have no legal obligation to accept refugees from Syria. So that idea doesn't work.
So we pay them to take them back. It would still be cheaper than hosting them here. If Turkey asks for an unreasonable amount, we pay Lebanon or Jordan instead.
What does not work is your approach of incentivising more people to make the crossing. That mentality is what has caused this sort of graph:
Every news announcement that a Western country is taking more people is a signal for more people in the developing world to make the journey. As the people open to this signal constitute tens of millions, it only needs to prompt 0.1% more of them to be prompted into taking the trip to entirely counteract the extra ones we are taking. As it is likely to be more than 0.1% they are making, we would actually be increasing the problem for our EU neighbours. Just look at the graph for goodness' sake: Merkel's approach has caused an exponential increase. People said the cold weather would reduce the crossings, but they're actually increasing.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
And we've just negotiated a big deal on the refugee issue with Turkey, so that can change.
Good luck with that idea. They are hosting, under no obligation, 2 million refugees already. I doubt they'll be too ready to take several hundred thousand more that are already in Europe.
@JasonGroves1: Was that six times that shadow Treasury minister Seema Malhotra refused to say whether Labour wd reverse tax credit cuts? #marrshow
@StuartWilksHeeg: Predicted as "Cameron's poll tax moment" so far: the bedroom tax; cuts to Council Tax benefit; fracking; Trade Union Bill; tax credit cuts.
Off topic I think that Antifrank has a point in that the current policy of only taking those in the refugee camps around Syria simply does not help with the hundreds of thousands already in the EU and that we have a duty to help not only those immigrants but the EU countries struggling to deal with them.
I take the point that making rose gardens for those already in Europe encourages more to come, people trafficking and death but it seems to me that it is every bit as legitimate to take appropriate cases from those in camps in Italy and Greece as those in Lebanon and Jordan. I think we need to do both.
Why? - far better to return those who've arrived illegally and much fairer. It has worked for Australia. You're opting for more fudge and muddle which is how Europe has got itself here in the first place.
I don't disagree that those economic migrants from safe countries should be returned wherever they are in Europe. But there are hundreds of thousands that don't meet those criteria and I think we have to help the Mediterranean countries who are being overwhelmed by this by taking some of those.
You have no more idea than I have of the numbers of genuine refugees in Europe - since no-one is doing any realistic assessment or processing. You perhaps baulk at the idea of sending them back to refugee camps for that processing to occur. I do not.
I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
Personally? No.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.
I remember that Thatcher's interpretation (controversial at the time) of the parable of the good samaritan was that one had to become prosperous so one could be charitable, a qualification that the UK in the comparative wealth of nations has unarguably attained. Remarkably, or perhaps not, it appears that Thacher's sprogs possess less milk of human kindness than the great she-elephant herself.
I do not know what she would say today though. Why would she be different from all the PBTories ?
But historically Britain has absorbed huge amounts of immigration. During the pogroms in Russia. Just before WW2. East African Asians. And, let's not forget around 750k Polish and East Europeans lust 10 years ago.
The migration in the 50's from black and brown Commonweatlh countries [ euphemistically called "new" commonwealth ] was slightly different. They were recruited.
Overall, current immigration to the UK is on a far greater scale than those historic levels.
Off topic I think that Antifrank has a point in that the current policy of only taking those in the refugee camps around Syria simply does not help with the hundreds of thousands already in the EU and that we have a duty to help not only those immigrants but the EU countries struggling to deal with them.
I take the point that making rose gardens for those already in Europe encourages more to come, people trafficking and death but it seems to me that it is every bit as legitimate to take appropriate cases from those in camps in Italy and Greece as those in Lebanon and Jordan. I think we need to do both.
Why? - far better to return those who've arrived illegally and much fairer. It has worked for Australia. You're opting for more fudge and muddle which is how Europe has got itself here in the first place.
I don't disagree that those economic migrants from safe countries should be returned wherever they are in Europe. But there are hundreds of thousands that don't meet those criteria and I think we have to help the Mediterranean countries who are being overwhelmed by this by taking some of those.
There may be a case for helping some in camps in those countries (in my case, I would make Syrian and Iraqi Christians a priority for help) but that help should also extend to helping those Mediterranean countries police their borders properly so that they are not overwhelmed in the way they have been.
Spain had a huge influx of people from West Africa a few years ago. They dealt with it by returning people to their point of embarkation, and providing very generous aid packages to the region. I think that's the kind of approach we should be adopting.
Makes sense to me - but there are too many on here today who want a grand display of the welcome mat and virtue signal themselves to a state of orgasmic proportions - with other people's money!
It is possible Harper could make it tighter than most of the polls suggest, it is also possible the NDP vote could collapse further giving Trudeau an outside chance of a majority
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
A
O.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
And we've just negotiated a big deal on the refugee issue with Turkey, so that can change.
Good luck with that idea. They are hosting, under no obligation, 2 million refugees already. I doubt they'll be too ready to take several hundred thousand more that are already in Europe.
Good luck with your idea. We are hosting, under no obligation, 6 million additional immigrants over the last 10-15 years. I doubt the UK will be too ready to take several hundred thousand more that are already in Europe.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Is there not a case for saying that those who come from countries other than Syria i.e. those from Afghanistan, Pakistan etc should be returned to those countries? They are not refugees from the Syrian civil war, after all. They can apply to enter European countries in the normal way, if they meet the criteria.
But Afghanistan is not exactly safe is it? It is racked by a Civil War that is a consequence of us being defeated by the Taliban. Somalia is not safe and has no functional government. Yemen is also at war with brutal massacres by both sides. Southern Sudan is bandit country. Iraq is a battle field where people get murdered and raped for being the wrong type of Islamist. The list goes on and on. At the moment Syria has scale and size forcing us to give it attention but, ultimately, why are those from these other countries less deserving?
Spain had a huge influx of people from West Africa a few years ago. They dealt with it by returning people to their point of embarkation, and providing very generous aid packages to the region. I think that's the kind of approach we should be adopting.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
A
O.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
And we've just negotiated a big deal on the refugee issue with Turkey, so that can change.
Good luck with that idea. They are hosting, under no obligation, 2 million refugees already. I doubt they'll be too ready to take several hundred thousand more that are already in Europe.
Good luck with your idea. We are hosting, under no obligation, 6 million additional immigrants over the last 10-15 years. I doubt the UK will be too ready to take several hundred thousand more that are already in Europe.
The bishops' suggestion was 50,000 in five years. 10,000 a year.
I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
Personally? No.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.
I remember that Thatcher's interpretation (controversial at the time) of the parable of the good samaritan was that one had to become prosperous so one could be charitable, a qualification that the UK in the comparative wealth of nations has unarguably attained. Remarkably, or perhaps not, it appears that Thacher's sprogs possess less milk of human kindness than the great she-elephant herself.
I do not know what she would say today though. Why would she be different from all the PBTories ?
But historically Britain has absorbed huge amounts of immigration. During the pogroms in Russia. Just before WW2. East African Asians. And, let's not forget around 750k Polish and East Europeans lust 10 years ago.
The migration in the 50's from black and brown Commonweatlh countries [ euphemistically called "new" commonwealth ] was slightly different. They were recruited.
The 750k Eastern Europeans we have taken wasn't 10 years ago. It was from 10 years ago, on going, and is still continuing. On top of that, is vast immigration from South Asia, often unskilled, of which a substantial segment we have struggled to integrate. We are being asked to take tens of thousands of asylum seekers on top. Of course, once we have done that, you can still apply the same argument "we've already taken 50,000, what difference does another 50,000 make?"
And, of course, there will still be a seven figure sum of Syrian refugees, so we will have barely dented the issue. And we will increase refugee flows by more than 50,000 by doing it, so not reducing the problem in the EU. And all this at a cost many times greater of helping people in the camps, so actually reducing the benefit we are giving people.
On topic I genuinely hope there are no winners in this market. Labour needs its sane MPs to stay inside the Labour party and fight for its continued existence. To do that they need to organise and, frankly, stop being so pathetic. (In fairness this accusation is not really directed at most on this list but the nodding donkeys who followed McDonnell).
Please explain why you think that Labour voted for Corbyn. If you have a clue.
I honestly struggle with that because I frankly don't get it. I would be interested to hear the views of those that did. Nick has sort of explained but I find his reasoning on this difficult to follow.
It is obvious that none of the other candidates inspired. They were not willing to spell out what they stood for. Liz Kendall was a modest exception to this but her ideas never got beyond a sound bite. I don't think the majority who voted for him really understood the extent to which he was really anti British. There was a desire for simplistic solutions and he promised them. As the others did not challenge him until way too late he got away with that.
Underlying the vote is the more fundamental problem for Labour: what does it offer in an age of austerity? Austerity will not end when the budget deficit goes (if it does), it needs to address the debt.
I think there is much that Labour can do on social mobility, the efficiency and effectiveness of public services, structural investment planning (where Osborne has of course pinched their idea because it was a good one) and housing but it has to be done in a context where money is extremely short. This requires the sort of hard thinking that I don't believe Corbyn is even capable of conceiving let alone doing.
Thank you for that reply. I have said before that I think Labour is an idea whose time has gone. Its members have had what they've never had before, 13 years continuously in government. And they didn't like it. A few dozen careerists may think - rightly or wrongly - that they can manage capitalism better than the Tories but that doesn't inspire the typical Party activist. (Nick Palmer wisely keeps quiet about that truth.)
Politics are no longer about class, but identity (race and religion). Our Party system and, I am increasingly coming to believe, Parliamentary democracy itself are poorly designed to handle political cleavage based on those identities.
Off topic I think that Antifrank has a point in that the current policy of only taking those in the refugee camps around Syria simply does not help with the hundreds of thousands already in the EU and that we have a duty to help not only those immigrants but the EU countries struggling to deal with them.
I take the point that making rose gardens for those already in Europe encourages more to come, people trafficking and death but it seems to me that it is every bit as legitimate to take appropriate cases from those in camps in Italy and Greece as those in Lebanon and Jordan. I think we need to do both.
Why? - far better to return those who've arrived illegally and much fairer. It has worked for Australia. You're opting for more fudge and muddle which is how Europe has got itself here in the first place.
I don't disagree that those economic migrants from safe countries should be returned wherever they are in Europe. But there are hundreds of thousands that don't meet those criteria and I think we have to help the Mediterranean countries who are being overwhelmed by this by taking some of those.
There may be a case for helping some in camps in those countries (in my case, I would make Syrian and Iraqi Christians a priority for help) but that help should also extend to helping those Mediterranean countries police their borders properly so that they are not overwhelmed in the way they have been.
Sure. Repatriating people is difficult and expensive. We should help them with that too.
Off topic I think that Antifrank has a point in that the current policy of only taking those in the refugee camps around Syria simply does not help with the hundreds of thousands already in the EU and that we have a duty to help not only those immigrants but the EU countries struggling to deal with them.
I take the point that making rose gardens for those already in Europe encourages more to come, people trafficking and death but it seems to me that it is every bit as legitimate to take appropriate cases from those in camps in Italy and Greece as those in Lebanon and Jordan. I think we need to do both.
Why? - far better to return those who've arrived illegally and much fairer. It has worked for Australia. You're opting for more fudge and muddle which is how Europe has got itself here in the first place.
I don't disagree that those economic migrants from safe countries should be returned wherever they are in Europe. But there are hundreds of thousands that don't meet those criteria and I think we have to help the Mediterranean countries who are being overwhelmed by this by taking some of those.
There may be a case for helping some in camps in those countries (in my case, I would make Syrian and Iraqi Christians a priority for help) but that help should also extend to helping those Mediterranean countries police their borders properly so that they are not overwhelmed in the way they have been.
I agree. The mistake is having rescued people, to land them in Southern Europe, so they can travel to Northern Europe.
"Mr Powell writes that the then prime minister is convinced "the threat is real" and "success" against the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "will yield more regional success"."
Yes, warmonger Bliar , it did ! As did one of your successors policy to get rid of Gaddafi. There are a million people here in Europe to prove your point.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
Antifrank: the lack of legal obligation works both ways though. We aren't under a legal obligation to take these people either, particularly when a significant number of them are not refugees in any case. Your argument is that we have a moral duty to help - but that equally applies to Turkey and other countries surrounding Syria.
If we base the argument on moral duty, then that does not just apply to us. Part of the irritation with the Bishops is that they seem to behave as if only the UK has some sort of moral duty and that it has been shirking it when it is at least arguable that (a) it has done more than other countries in terms of practical help; and (b) those countries which encourage people to risk death in trying to come here and which take no or little account of their own citizens' wishes are not being particularly moral either.
Off topic I think that Antifrank has a point in that the current policy of only taking those in the refugee camps around Syria simply does not help with the hundreds of thousands already in the EU and that we have a duty to help not only those immigrants but the EU countries struggling to deal with them.
I take the point that making rose gardens for those already in Europe encourages more to come, people trafficking and death but it seems to me that it is every bit as legitimate to take appropriate cases from those in camps in Italy and Greece as those in Lebanon and Jordan. I think we need to do both.
Why? - far better to return those who've arrived illegally and much fairer. It has worked for Australia. You're opting for more fudge and muddle which is how Europe has got itself here in the first place.
I don't disagree that those economic migrants from safe countries should be returned wherever they are in Europe. But there are hundreds of thousands that don't meet those criteria and I think we have to help the Mediterranean countries who are being overwhelmed by this by taking some of those.
There may be a case for helping some in camps in those countries (in my case, I would make Syrian and Iraqi Christians a priority for help) but that help should also extend to helping those Mediterranean countries police their borders properly so that they are not overwhelmed in the way they have been.
I'm not sure I agree with this desire to prioritise Christians.
Firstly, the major problem of integration is not one of religion, but one of culture (although the two do interrelate to a certain extent). We have an friend who is an Indian Christian lady, and she is facing some significant familial issues that are due to culture rather than religion. Not many people in the UK would agree with her family on the issue, but they are Christians.
Secondly, it sends the wrong message: we need less religion in our state and laws, not more.
The only reason to agree to this is on a by-need basis: if the Christians are suffering in the camps because of their religion (and some reports show this might be the case), then perhaps they should be prioritised. But that should go for other religions and sects that may be unduly suffering in the camps.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
Antifrank: the lack of legal obligation works both ways though. We aren't under a legal obligation to take these people either, particularly when a significant number of them are not refugees in any case. Your argument is that we have a moral duty to help - but that equally applies to Turkey and other countries surrounding Syria.
If we base the argument on moral duty, then that does not just apply to us. Part of the irritation with the Bishops is that they seem to behave as if only the UK has some sort of moral duty and that it has been shirking it when it is at least arguable that (a) it has done more than other countries in terms of practical help; and (b) those countries which encourage people to risk death in trying to come here and which take no or little account of their own citizens' wishes are not being particularly moral either.
You may not have heard. Germany is taking on 800,000 refugees. In reality, 1.5m perhaps.
So what is your solution ? Send them back ? In trains ?
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
Antifrank: the lack of legal obligation works both ways though. We aren't under a legal obligation to take these people either, particularly when a significant number of them are not refugees in any case. Your argument is that we have a moral duty to help - but that equally applies to Turkey and other countries surrounding Syria.
If we base the argument on moral duty, then that does not just apply to us. Part of the irritation with the Bishops is that they seem to behave as if only the UK has some sort of moral duty and that it has been shirking it when it is at least arguable that (a) it has done more than other countries in terms of practical help; and (b) those countries which encourage people to risk death in trying to come here and which take no or little account of their own citizens' wishes are not being particularly moral either.
Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are very fully meeting their moral duty to help, on a scale that dwarfs that undertaken by any EU country.
I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
Personally? No.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.
I remember that Thatcher's interpretation (controversial at the time) of the parable of the good samaritan was that one had to become prosperous so one could be charitable, a qualification that the UK in the comparative wealth of nations has unarguably attained. Remarkably, or perhaps not, it appears that Thacher's sprogs possess less milk of human kindness than the great she-elephant herself.
I do not know what she would say today though. Why would she be different from all the PBTories ?
But historically Britain has absorbed huge amounts of immigration. During the pogroms in Russia. Just before WW2. East African Asians. And, let's not forget around 750k Polish and East Europeans lust 10 years ago.
The migration in the 50's from black and brown Commonweatlh countries [ euphemistically called "new" commonwealth ] was slightly different. They were recruited.
Historically that has not been the case. The numbers Britain has absorbed have been relatively very small. It is only in the last 30 years that the numbers have increased dramatically, which may well explain why immigration is now such a concern, at least as expressed in opinion polls.
Antifrank..Hungary are having a prob at the moment... have you volunteered that fine house with swimming pool..it could probably make two Syrian families very happy
I don’t know why anyone takes any notice of TY; if it wasn’t for his father and consequent connections no-one would!
And I have read the article, the Mail itself appears to be setting itself up as a standard for nasty sneering abuse of other people’s views.There’s no sbob like a reverse snob!
And while I don’t now, I used to live in an archetypical “suburban” area.
Underlying the vote is the more fundamental problem for Labour: what does it offer in an age of austerity? Austerity will not end when the budget deficit goes (if it does), it needs to address the debt.
Alternatives to austerity might include economic growth.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
Antifrank: the lack of legal obligation works both ways though. We aren't under a legal obligation to take these people either, particularly when a significant number of them are not refugees in any case. Your argument is that we have a moral duty to help - but that equally applies to Turkey and other countries surrounding Syria.
(snip)
To be fair, Turkey reacted very quickly and has done, until recent months, an excellent job wrt the refugees. But they're creaking under the strain and need help. Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan are also helping at great cost.
It is possible Harper could make it tighter than most of the polls suggest, it is also possible the NDP vote could collapse further giving Trudeau an outside chance of a majority
But even that CBC today poll you cite shows only 20 seats in it - that's a very small margin of error. If the Liberals fail to pick up just 10 seats against the Tories within it, then Harper will be ahead.
I still see this as a value bet.
The election prediction project forecast is of value precisely because it doesn't feed off headline opinion polls. It does a bottom-up analysis of each riding to predict the overall result - so it's worth taking note of:
You are correct that the performance of the NDP is critical. But the Tory base is also loyal, and well-organised, and I don't see them dropping beneath 110 seats in almost any circumstances - bar a 1997 wipeout.
I see a Liberal majority as far too big an ask - it'd require over 135 gains, and I don't think they have the infrastructure for that.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Great to agree with you MalcG - he keeps asking the same question and ignores the answer or calls them arseholes - nice man!
THE rubbish-strewn beach at Hann, a suburb of Dakar, Senegal’s capital, is packed with colourful, canoe-like pirogue fishing boats, ideal for smuggling lucrative human cargo. A dozen years ago the first ghastly scenes of drowned bodies washing up on European beaches featured pirogues from Hann and elsewhere that set out for the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago just 60 miles (100km) off the African coast. In 2007, 32,000 migrants reached them by sea. By 2010 the flow had slowed to a trickle, with fewer than 200 reaching the Canaries by sea most years since then. None came from Senegal.
With hundreds of thousands of migrants now arriving elsewhere in Europe, that sounds magical. “Spain has accumulated experience that no other country has,” says Carmen Gonzalez, a migration specialist at the country’s National Distance Education University...
Mr. F, I agree. Those picked up in the Mediterranean should be taken to camps or returned to their point of embarkation, and their 'ship' [probably a dinghy] confiscated or destroyed.
Until we have provided housing for all of the homeless in the UK..then we should not take any more refugees..any any we do take must be aware of the fact that when their homeland has settled down then they must return... regardless of their situation here..it should be offered as a temporary sanctuary only..
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
Antifrank: the lack of legal obligation works both ways though. We aren't under a legal obligation to take these people either, particularly when a significant number of them are not refugees in any case. Your argument is that we have a moral duty to help - but that equally applies to Turkey and other countries surrounding Syria.
If we base the argument on moral duty, then that does not just apply to us. Part of the irritation with the Bishops is that they seem to behave as if only the UK has some sort of moral duty and that it has been shirking it when it is at least arguable that (a) it has done more than other countries in terms of practical help; and (b) those countries which encourage people to risk death in trying to come here and which take no or little account of their own citizens' wishes are not being particularly moral either.
You may not have heard. Germany is taking on 800,000 refugees. In reality, 1.5m perhaps.
So what is your solution ? Send them back ? In trains ?
Again you keep asking the same question to which the answer is still yes. Unless you'd prefer them to be frogmarched back on foot?
I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
Personally? No.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.
I remember that Thatcher's interpretation (controversial at the time) of the parable of the good samaritan was that one had to become prosperous so one could be charitable, a qualification that the UK in the comparative wealth of nations has unarguably attained. Remarkably, or perhaps not, it appears that Thacher's sprogs possess less milk of human kindness than the great she-elephant herself.
I do not know what she would say today though. Why would she be different from all the PBTories ?
But historically Britain has absorbed huge amounts of immigration. During the pogroms in Russia. Just before WW2. East African Asians. And, let's not forget around 750k Polish and East Europeans lust 10 years ago.
The migration in the 50's from black and brown Commonweatlh countries [ euphemistically called "new" commonwealth ] was slightly different. They were recruited.
The 750k Eastern Europeans we have taken wasn't 10 years ago. It was from 10 years ago, on going, and is still continuing. On top of that, is vast immigration from South Asia, often unskilled, of which a substantial segment we have struggled to integrate. We are being asked to take tens of thousands of asylum seekers on top. Of course, once we have done that, you can still apply the same argument "we've already taken 50,000, what difference does another 50,000 make?"
And, of course, there will still be a seven figure sum of Syrian refugees, so we will have barely dented the issue. And we will increase refugee flows by more than 50,000 by doing it, so not reducing the problem in the EU. And all this at a cost many times greater of helping people in the camps, so actually reducing the benefit we are giving people.
We take on very little migration from South Asia today. The dependent families have come here a long time ago. Unlike the US Green card system, our rules does not allow an immigrant to "sponsor" his brother , for example. In the US, the links never end. In any case, the US and Canada welcomes immigrants because they need them.
In Canada, immigrants vote for all the three major parties.
But Afghanistan is not exactly safe is it? It is racked by a Civil War that is a consequence of us being defeated by the Taliban. Somalia is not safe and has no functional government. Yemen is also at war with brutal massacres by both sides. Southern Sudan is bandit country. Iraq is a battle field where people get murdered and raped for being the wrong type of Islamist. The list goes on and on. At the moment Syria has scale and size forcing us to give it attention but, ultimately, why are those from these other countries less deserving?
The worst conflict-ridden area in the world is the Democratic Republic of Congo, population 70 million. Many of the asylum seekers are coming from Nigeria, population 170 million, and Pakistan, population 180 million.
It is astoundingly obvious that just tiny changes in the shares of these populations deciding to make the trip will cause current numbers to rocket further, certainly dwarfing any tens of thousands we might take.
This is a broken translation from Google Translate, but it's "Merkel's welcome reverberates around West Africa":
A murmur runs through the crowd, as the number sets in the minds of Malian viewers and listeners. It is whispered: "Now must go out to." The suction effect of the German refugee policy is large in West Africa. In countries such as Mali or Niger Transit is the number of those who want to leave the country, has risen rapidly. Exact figures are not available. In Bamako is spoken on every street corner on the details of the German refugee situation. A sure indicator of the renewed interest in Germany.
It's the same effect across the Middle East:
When I ask about the subject on everyone's mind here — the migrant flood into Europe — he laughs. "We were just talking about this!" he says. Several of his friends just passed by to say farewell. They heard that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was welcoming Iraqis. "Each one said, 'I'm traveling,' 'I'm traveling,' 'I'm traveling,' " says Hussein. All want to be smuggled to Europe.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Is there not a case for saying that those who come from countries other than Syria i.e. those from Afghanistan, Pakistan etc should be returned to those countries? They are not refugees from the Syrian civil war, after all. They can apply to enter European countries in the normal way, if they meet the criteria.
But Afghanistan is not exactly safe is it? It is racked by a Civil War that is a consequence of us being defeated by the Taliban. Somalia is not safe and has no functional government. Yemen is also at war with brutal massacres by both sides. Southern Sudan is bandit country. Iraq is a battle field where people get murdered and raped for being the wrong type of Islamist. The list goes on and on. At the moment Syria has scale and size forcing us to give it attention but, ultimately, why are those from these other countries less deserving?
We cannot take everyone from every god awful country in the world. We can't. And there are real problems, frankly, with taking people who have come from the sort of countries where there are civil wars, no functional governments, brutal massacres, bandits at loose and 57 varieties of Islamists. All these things are not things that fall out of the sky - they are the consequences of the actions, non-actions and cultures and world views of those same people. Letting those people in risks letting in the problems they are fleeing from. To put it bluntly, the people who come from the cesspits full of war and banditry and massacres are not without some responsibility from the fact that their countries have ended up in such a mess. At some level, people get the governments they deserve. If Somalia and Eritrea and such bloody awful places, tough as it may seem to say so, that has something - probably quite a lot to do - with Somalians and Eritreans and how they have organised their lives and societies.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Great to agree with you MalcG - he keeps asking the same question and ignores the answer or calls them arseholes - nice man!
I've only called you an arsehole. I explained why. I stand by that judgement.
I've given clear reasons why the "send 'em back" brigade haven't got a solution - there's nowhere to send 'em back to.
I think that Antifrank has a point in that the current policy of only taking those in the refugee camps around Syria simply does not help with the hundreds of thousands already in the EU and that we have a duty to help not only those immigrants but the EU countries struggling to deal with them.
I take the point that making rose gardens for those already in Europe encourages more to come, people trafficking and death but it seems to me that it is every bit as legitimate to take appropriate cases from those in camps in Italy and Greece as those in Lebanon and Jordan. I think we need to do both.
Why? - far better to return those who've arrived illegally and much fairer. It has worked for Australia. You're opting for more fudge and muddle which is how Europe has got itself here in the first place.
I don't disagree that those economic migrants from safe countries should be returned wherever they are in Europe. But there are hundreds of thousands that don't meet those criteria and I think we have to help the Mediterranean countries who are being overwhelmed by this by taking some of those.
There may be a case for helping some in camps in those countries (in my case, I would make Syrian and Iraqi Christians a priority for help) but that help should also extend to helping those Mediterranean countries police their borders properly so that they are not overwhelmed in the way they have been.
Sure. Repatriating people is difficult and expensive. We should help them with that too.
I'm with DavidL and antifrank on this one - we are ignoring a humanitarian crisis inside European borders if we neglect refugees in Europe because we fear a hypothetical risk that it might encourage others if we did. That is the kind of thinking which was originally applied against the Poor Law - if you give the poor shelter in workhouses, it will only encourage others to claim. It might be true, but the level of the crisis makes such speculation secondary.
And no offence - Cyclefree and I have managed to disagree totally on these things without any personal disrespect and I hope it will continue - I also think it's a truly awful idea to attempt selectively to help Christian refugees. How would this be done, even if it was desirable? Would we test refugees on their knowledge of the catechism? Would we really ignore the suffering of a sick refugee because the healthy refugee in the next bed ticked the right religious box? If the idea is that the Christian refugee might have a higher risk if sent back, the test should be level of risk, not purported religious belief. And if it's to weed out Islamic fanatics, I'm sure ISIS is capable of giving some confiscated Bibles and crucifixes to its agents.
Underlying the vote is the more fundamental problem for Labour: what does it offer in an age of austerity? Austerity will not end when the budget deficit goes (if it does), it needs to address the debt.
Alternatives to austerity might include economic growth.
And you mean we don't have any?
You might like to look at some economic indicators then.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
A
O.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
T
S.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
And we've just negotiated a big deal on the refugee issue with Turkey, so that can change.
Good luck with that idea. They are hosting, under no obligation, 2 million refugees already. I doubt they'll be too ready to take several hundred thousand more that are already in Europe.
Good luck with your idea. We are hosting, under no obligation, 6 million additional immigrants over the last 10-15 years. I doubt the UK will be too ready to take several hundred thousand more that are already in Europe.
The bishops' suggestion was 50,000 in five years. 10,000 a year.
And how long will those figures last? What if millions more then come, seeing that Britain has relented and offers a route in with migrants happily sharing pictures on social media of their pleasant arrival in Folkestone on their iPhones? What then?
We are taking 20,000 from the camps directly over the next five years. If there's a massive deterioration, those figures can be revised, but they must always be taken 'from source' and we must return immigrants to their point of embarkation.
No incentive, no reward and no encouragement whatsoever to landing in Europe.
Underlying the vote is the more fundamental problem for Labour: what does it offer in an age of austerity? Austerity will not end when the budget deficit goes (if it does), it needs to address the debt.
Alternatives to austerity might include economic growth.
We are already the fastest growing major developed nation, what kind of growth do you propose that we don't already have? A new bubble?
Not that growth can get rid of structural deficits.
Taxpayers are facing a bill of almost £150 million to defend British soldiers who are being sued by enemy fighters for breaching their “human rights”.
More than 2,000 separate compensation claims and judicial review cases have been prepared by lawyers in the aftermath of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Suspected Taliban bomb-makers and insurgents captured by British troops on the battlefield are among those who have begun legal action against the government...
Now ministers have ordered a fight-back to end the compensation claims that they say stop the Armed Forces doing their jobs.
Indeed. I think the Govt. have just found the magic bullet which will gain support for repealing the '98 act.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Great to agree with you MalcG - he keeps asking the same question and ignores the answer or calls them arseholes - nice man!
I've only called you an arsehole. I explained why. I stand by that judgement.
I've given clear reasons why the "send 'em back" brigade haven't got a solution - there's nowhere to send 'em back to.
And you have now called me that 4 times simply for asking why you don't personally want to do more for these unfortunate people. You've given no reasonable responses to any of the points made this morning - choosing instead to hurl abuse at reasonable criticisms. Now if you had more imagination you could have 'Scharma'd' me and called me...'suburban'. Heigh ho it's better than 'tory scum'.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
I
But Afghanistan is not exactly safe is it? It is racked by a Civil War that is a consequence of us being defeated by the Taliban. Somalia is not safe and has no functional government. Yemen is also at war with brutal massacres by both sides. Southern Sudan is bandit country. Iraq is a battle field where people get murdered and raped for being the wrong type of Islamist. The list goes on and on. At the moment Syria has scale and size forcing us to give it attention but, ultimately, why are those from these other countries less deserving?
We cannot take everyone from every god awful country in the world. We can't. And there are real problems, frankly, with taking people who have come from the sort of countries where there are civil wars, no functional governments, brutal massacres, bandits at loose and 57 varieties of Islamists. All these things are not things that fall out of the sky - they are the consequences of the actions, non-actions and cultures and world views of those same people. Letting those people in risks letting in the problems they are fleeing from. To put it bluntly, the people who come from the cesspits full of war and banditry and massacres are not without some responsibility from the fact that their countries have ended up in such a mess. At some level, people get the governments they deserve. If Somalia and Eritrea and such bloody awful places, tough as it may seem to say so, that has something - probably quite a lot to do - with Somalians and Eritreans and how they have organised their lives and societies.
God, you are so right. As are Sean Fear and JEO.
Antifrank, DavidL and Nick Palmer are wrong, totally wrong, absolutely wrong and fundamentally wrong.
I don't recall such apoplexy when 750k - 1m East European migrants [ legally though ] came to Britain. Yes, there were a few murmurs, UKIPs numbers went up to 3% in 2010 !
What's the difference between 750k Poles and 750k Syrians ? I can think of one.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Great to agree with you MalcG - he keeps asking the same question and ignores the answer or calls them arseholes - nice man!
I've only called you an arsehole. I explained why. I stand by that judgement.
I've given clear reasons why the "send 'em back" brigade haven't got a solution - there's nowhere to send 'em back to.
But, the "let 'em all come brigade" have no solution, either.
Sure. Repatriating people is difficult and expensive. We should help them with that too.
I'm with DavidL and antifrank on this one - we are ignoring a humanitarian crisis inside European borders if we neglect refugees in Europe because we fear a hypothetical risk that it might encourage others if we did. That is the kind of thinking which was originally applied against the Poor Law - if you give the poor shelter in workhouses, it will only encourage others to claim. It might be true, but the level of the crisis makes such speculation secondary.
And no offence - Cyclefree and I have managed to disagree totally on these things without any personal disrespect and I hope it will continue - I also think it's a truly awful idea to attempt selectively to help Christian refugees. How would this be done, even if it was desirable? Would we test refugees on their knowledge of the catechism? Would we really ignore the suffering of a sick refugee because the healthy refugee in the next bed ticked the right religious box? If the idea is that the Christian refugee might have a higher risk if sent back, the test should be level of risk, not purported religious belief. And if it's to weed out Islamic fanatics, I'm sure ISIS is capable of giving some confiscated Bibles and crucifixes to its agents.
What humanitarian crisis inside European borders? 4% of refugees have made it to Europe, they are in safe western nations now. There is no crisis there.
96% of the refugees are still in or around Syria. That's 24 refugees for every one in Europe and they are not in safe western conditions. That is the true crisis.
To give a single penny or a single home to assist those who are already in Europe means the Opportunity Cost of denying that assistance to those who truly need it. What possible reason do we have to prioritise the needs of those already safe versus the needs of those who are truly destitute and desperate?
I don't disagree that those economic migrants from safe countries should be returned wherever they are in Europe. But there are hundreds of thousands that don't meet those criteria and I think we have to help the Mediterranean countries who are being overwhelmed by this by taking some of those.
There may be a case for helping some in camps in those countries (in my case, I would make Syrian and Iraqi Christians a priority for help) but that help should also extend to helping those Mediterranean countries police their borders properly so that they are not overwhelmed in the way they have been.
I'm not sure I agree with this desire to prioritise Christians.
Firstly, the major problem of integration is not one of religion, but one of culture (although the two do interrelate to a certain extent). We have an friend who is an Indian Christian lady, and she is facing some significant familial issues that are due to culture rather than religion. Not many people in the UK would agree with her family on the issue, but they are Christians.
Secondly, it sends the wrong message: we need less religion in our state and laws, not more.
The only reason to agree to this is on a by-need basis: if the Christians are suffering in the camps because of their religion (and some reports show this might be the case), then perhaps they should be prioritised. But that should go for other religions and sects that may be unduly suffering in the camps.
The reason I prioritise them and the Yazidis is that they are facing very real persecution and extermination in their home countries. There is very little chance - in the short term - that they will be able to return even when the fighting has stopped. There was a recent very good article by Patrick Cockburn who visited some parts of Syria where Christian villages had been retaken from Islamists but where the previous Christian inhabitants were still too afraid to return and unlikely to do so. So they have literally nowhere to go if we don't take them in and will in all likely be exterminated. If we're interested in what Bishops have to say, let's listen to those who really know like the Bishop of Aleppo or those in Iraq and elsewhere.
Second, I don't think by giving refuge to such groups we are bringing more religion into our state and laws. We are giving refuge to individuals who, because of their religion, are being persecuted. That seems to me exactly what we should be doing. I argued the same thing when Muslims were being persecuted in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
But Afghanistan is not exactly safe is it? It is racked by a Civil War that is a consequence of us being defeated by the Taliban. Somalia is not safe and has no functional government. Yemen is also at war with brutal massacres by both sides. Southern Sudan is bandit country. Iraq is a battle field where people get murdered and raped for being the wrong type of Islamist. The list goes on and on. At the moment Syria has scale and size forcing us to give it attention but, ultimately, why are those from these other countries less deserving?
The worst conflict-ridden area in the world is the Democratic Republic of Congo, population 70 million. Many of the asylum seekers are coming from Nigeria, population 170 million, and Pakistan, population 180 million.
It is astoundingly obvious that just tiny changes in the shares of these populations deciding to make the trip will cause current numbers to rocket further, certainly dwarfing any tens of thousands we might take.
This is a broken translation from Google Translate, but it's "Merkel's welcome reverberates around West Africa":
A murmur runs through the crowd, as the number sets in the minds of Malian viewers and listeners. It is whispered: "Now must go out to." The suction effect of the German refugee policy is large in West Africa. In countries such as Mali or Niger Transit is the number of those who want to leave the country, has risen rapidly. Exact figures are not available. In Bamako is spoken on every street corner on the details of the German refugee situation. A sure indicator of the renewed interest in Germany.
It's the same effect across the Middle East:
When I ask about the subject on everyone's mind here — the migrant flood into Europe — he laughs. "We were just talking about this!" he says. Several of his friends just passed by to say farewell. They heard that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was welcoming Iraqis. "Each one said, 'I'm traveling,' 'I'm traveling,' 'I'm traveling,' " says Hussein. All want to be smuggled to Europe.
On topic I genuinely hope there are no winners in this market. Labour needs its sane MPs to stay inside the Labour party and fight for its continued existence. To do that they need to organise and, frankly, stop being so pathetic. (In fairness this accusation is not really directed at most on this list but the nodding donkeys who followed McDonnell).
Please explain why you think that Labour voted for Corbyn. If you have a clue.
I honestly struggle with that because I frankly don't get it. I would be interested to hear the views of those that did. Nick has sort of explained but I find his reasoning on this difficult to follow.
[snip for length]
I think there is much that Labour can do on social mobility, the efficiency and effectiveness of public services, structural investment planning (where Osborne has of course pinched their idea because it was a good one) and housing but it has to be done in a context where money is extremely short. This requires the sort of hard thinking that I don't believe Corbyn is even capable of conceiving let alone doing.
Thank you for that reply. I have said before that I think Labour is an idea whose time has gone. Its members have had what they've never had before, 13 years continuously in government. And they didn't like it. A few dozen careerists may think - rightly or wrongly - that they can manage capitalism better than the Tories but that doesn't inspire the typical Party activist. (Nick Palmer wisely keeps quiet about that truth.)
Politics are no longer about class, but identity (race and religion). Our Party system and, I am increasingly coming to believe, Parliamentary democracy itself are poorly designed to handle political cleavage based on those identities.
I'll have another go. I don't know any Labour people who are positively against good management or think that huge deficits are a fine thing. And I think that most of us would accept that good management of the economy is a necessary precondition of everything else. But Innocent is right that we don't see it as the main purpose, but just as a precondition for the main purpose, which is social justice and greater equality of outcomes (including but not restricted to equality of opportunity). Unless we start from that basis, as Corbyn does, it's a waste of time to talk about preconditions.
I'm under no illusions that it's easy to win on that basis. But unless we have something we think valuable to achieve, I'm not that interested in whether we win or not.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
I
But Afghanistan is not exactly safe is it? It is racked by a Civil War that is a consequence of us being defeated by the Taliban. Somalia is not safe and has no functional government. Yemen is also at war with brutal massacres by both sides. Southern Sudan is bandit country. Iraq is a battle field where people get murdered and raped for being the wrong type of Islamist. The list goes on and on. At the moment Syria has scale and size forcing us to give it attention but, ultimately, why are those from these other countries less deserving?
We cannot take everyone from every god awful country in the world. We can't. And there are real problems, frankly, with taking people who have come from the sort of countries where there are civil wars, no functional governments, brutal massacres, bandits at loose and 57 varieties of Islamists. All these things are not things that fall out of the sky - they are the consequences of the actions, non-actions and cultures and world views of those same people. Letting those people in risks letting in the problems they are fleeing from. To put it bluntly, the people who come from the cesspits full of war and banditry and massacres are not without some responsibility from the fact that their countries have ended up in such a mess. At some level, people get the governments they deserve. If Somalia and Eritrea and such bloody awful places, tough as it may seem to say so, that has something - probably quite a lot to do - with Somalians and Eritreans and how they have organised their lives and societies.
God, you are so right. As are Sean Fear and JEO.
Antifrank, DavidL and Nick Palmer are wrong, totally wrong, absolutely wrong and fundamentally wrong.
Do you really, really think the North Koreans, for example, “deserve” their Government?
And how long will those figures last? What if millions more then come, seeing that Britain has relented and offers a route in with migrants happily sharing pictures on social media of their pleasant arrival in Folkestone on their iPhones? What then?
We are taking 20,000 from the camps directly over the next five years. If there's a massive deterioration, those figures can be revised, but they must always be taken 'from source' and we must return immigrants to their point of embarkation.
No incentive, no reward and no encouragement whatsoever to landing in Europe.
That's a spectacular amount of whataboutery. A proposal has been made right now. It looks pretty modest.
If circumstances change, we can consider new proposals then.
To be clear, I am, as I always have been, very strongly in favour of supporting the refugees in camps in the region. Britain has done well there, unlike other EU states. The long term solution lies in the Middle East. But we have a pressing short term problem to address in Europe.
I'm with DavidL and antifrank on this one - we are ignoring a humanitarian crisis inside European borders if we neglect refugees in Europe because we fear a hypothetical risk that it might encourage others if we did. That is the kind of thinking which was originally applied against the Poor Law - if you give the poor shelter in workhouses, it will only encourage others to claim. It might be true, but the level of the crisis makes such speculation secondary.
It's not a hypothetical risk. It's something that has already happened. We have seen the number of Mediterranean crossings double since Merkel's announcement. We have investigative reporting from both the Middle East and West Africa that have people in these countries directly saying it made the difference. You just refuse to accept the facts because you are ideologically committed to one approach and won't listen to the evidence.
As for the idea that the 'level of the crisis makes it secondary', I am shocked to hear such wooly thinking from someone who was once in a position of governing power. The fact that the crisis is already so bad after your approach has been taken makes it even more important that we very carefully consider responses that could make it many, many times worse.
On topic I genuinely hope there are no winners in this market. Labour needs its sane MPs to stay inside the Labour party and fight for its continued existence. To do that they need to organise and, frankly, stop being so pathetic. (In fairness this accusation is not really directed at most on this list but the nodding donkeys who followed McDonnell).
That means the Corbyn's whipping operation should be given as much attention as he gave anyone else's. It means getting organised. It means putting a different Labour position forward in the Commons, the media, in PLPs, everywhere it can be. Sane Labour lost an election battle to Corbyn with some very ordinary generals. They do not need to accept that they lost the entire war.
Sooner or later the chaos and disaster that the Corbyn/McDonnell leadership is raining down on the party will impinge on the membership and minds will start to change. This process can be accelerated if there is an alternative being espoused from within the party by serious people.
David - thanks for your spin-less answer to my question on whether the SNP failures in government were resonating with the public. I was at the movies seeing The Martian (which I wholeheartedly recommend) and came out to the excitement of a 13% Tory lead, missing the post somewhat!
I see the latest poll sees the Tories taking over as official opposition in Holyrood. About time too.
I don't recall such apoplexy when 750k - 1m East European migrants [ legally though ] came to Britain. Yes, there were a few murmurs, UKIPs numbers went up to 3% in 2010 !
What's the difference between 750k Poles and 750k Syrians ? I can think of one.
Ah I get it now - one lot are Polish and in the EU and the others are Syrian and not in the EU. Yes, that must be your point.
I don't recall such apoplexy when 750k - 1m East European migrants [ legally though ] came to Britain. Yes, there were a few murmurs, UKIPs numbers went up to 3% in 2010 !
What's the difference between 750k Poles and 750k Syrians ? I can think of one.
The fact that they are culturally similar to the existing population and aren't coming from failed states are big differences.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Great to agree with you MalcG - he keeps asking the same question and ignores the answer or calls them arseholes - nice man!
I've only called you an arsehole. I explained why. I stand by that judgement.
I've given clear reasons why the "send 'em back" brigade haven't got a solution - there's nowhere to send 'em back to.
But, the "let 'em all come brigade" have no solution, either.
Final thought... they might *if* they stopped all flows of migrants first, as Spain did, *before* deciding how to deal with who's already here.
But they don't. They just want us to hand-wring and take in all the hard-luck cases that make it to our shores from around the world.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
Antifrank: the lack of legal obligation works both ways though. We aren't under a legal obligation to take these people either, particularly when a significant number of them are not refugees in any case. Your argument is that we have a moral duty to help - but that equally applies to Turkey and other countries surrounding Syria.
If we base the argument on moral duty, then that does not just apply to us. Part of the irritation with the Bishops is that they seem to behave as if only the UK has some sort of moral duty and that it has been shirking it when it is at least arguable that (a) it has done more than other countries in terms of practical help; and (b) those countries which encourage people to risk death in trying to come here and which take no or little account of their own citizens' wishes are not being particularly moral either.
Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are very fully meeting their moral duty to help, on a scale that dwarfs that undertaken by any EU country.
They are. And we should provide assistance to them, as we are doing. But as I have said before there are plenty of other countries in the region, with an equal moral duty, who are not. And we should not let them off the hook.
Underlying the vote is the more fundamental problem for Labour: what does it offer in an age of austerity? Austerity will not end when the budget deficit goes (if it does), it needs to address the debt.
Alternatives to austerity might include economic growth.
We are already the fastest growing major developed nation, what kind of growth do you propose that we don't already have? A new bubble?
Not that growth can get rid of structural deficits.
Ireland is growing far faster than UK. So is the USA.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Great to agree with you MalcG - he keeps asking the same question and ignores the answer or calls them arseholes - nice man!
Does not take a rocket scientist to know that if you rescue them and help their passage , every man and their dog from everywhere is going to head for Eldorado. Has been proven many times that the only way to discourage this is tough love. Shipped back ASAP or interned in a camp. The majority that you see on TV are not Syrian and are almost exclusively young men , all economic migrants who should not be there. As ever the bleeding heart liberals are making sure real refugees do not get help by wanting to throw money at millions and millions of economic migrants , most of whom will have shoved refugees out of the way. Soft thick headed whinging liberals will be the ruination of this country.
Sure. Repatriating people is difficult and expensive. We should help them with that too.
I'm with DavidL and antifrank on this one - we are ignoring a humanitarian crisis inside European borders if we neglect refugees in Europe because we fear a hypothetical risk that it might encourage others if we did. That is the kind of thinking which was originally applied against the Poor Law - if you give the poor shelter in workhouses, it will only encourage others to claim. It might be true, but the level of the crisis makes such speculation secondary.
And no offence - Cyclefree and I have managed to disagree totally on these things without any personal disrespect and I hope it will continue - I also think it's a truly awful idea to attempt selectively to help Christian refugees. How would this be done, even if it was desirable? Would we test refugees on their knowledge of the catechism? Would we really ignore the suffering of a sick refugee because the healthy refugee in the next bed ticked the right religious box? If the idea is that the Christian refugee might have a higher risk if sent back, the test should be level of risk, not purported religious belief. And if it's to weed out Islamic fanatics, I'm sure ISIS is capable of giving some confiscated Bibles and crucifixes to its agents.
What humanitarian crisis inside European borders? 4% of refugees have made it to Europe, they are in safe western nations now. There is no crisis there.
96% of the refugees are still in or around Syria. That's 24 refugees for every one in Europe and they are not in safe western conditions. That is the true crisis.
To give a single penny or a single home to assist those who are already in Europe means the Opportunity Cost of denying that assistance to those who truly need it. What possible reason do we have to prioritise the needs of those already safe versus the needs of those who are truly destitute and desperate?
Do we prioritise saving lives, or do we prioritise giving a far smaller number a Western standard of living?
Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more.
The desire by some for us to take more because it'll make us feel better is the foreign policy equivalent of Carmen Batmanghelidjh[sp] hugging children and giving them £70,000 a year as therapy. Do that, and every kid on the block will turn up for their therapeutic cash instalment. Do that, and everyone from a country not as nice as the UK or Germany will flood the continent.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
Antifrank: the lack of legal obligation works both ways though. We aren't under a legal obligation to take these people either, particularly when a significant number of them are not refugees in any case. Your argument is that we have a moral duty to help - but that equally applies to Turkey and other countries surrounding Syria.
If we base the argument on moral duty, then that does not just apply to us. Part of the irritation with the Bishops is that they seem to behave as if only the UK has some sort of moral duty and that it has been shirking it when it is at least arguable that (a) it has done more than other countries in terms of practical help; and (b) those countries which encourage people to risk death in trying to come here and which take no or little account of their own citizens' wishes are not being particularly moral either.
You may not have heard. Germany is taking on 800,000 refugees. In reality, 1.5m perhaps.
So what is your solution ? Send them back ? In trains ?
As even Germany is finding out, many of them are not refugees. More to the point, they want them because of their declining population. Fine. For Germany. But having decided that they want to invite a load of people - and tearing up established Conventions in the process - they are in no position to expect others to get them out of the entirely predictable and predicted mess of their own making.
And how long will those figures last? What if millions more then come, seeing that Britain has relented and offers a route in with migrants happily sharing pictures on social media of their pleasant arrival in Folkestone on their iPhones? What then?
We are taking 20,000 from the camps directly over the next five years. If there's a massive deterioration, those figures can be revised, but they must always be taken 'from source' and we must return immigrants to their point of embarkation.
No incentive, no reward and no encouragement whatsoever to landing in Europe.
That's a spectacular amount of whataboutery. A proposal has been made right now. It looks pretty modest.
If circumstances change, we can consider new proposals then.
To be clear, I am, as I always have been, very strongly in favour of supporting the refugees in camps in the region. Britain has done well there, unlike other EU states. The long term solution lies in the Middle East. But we have a pressing short term problem to address in Europe.
Whatever figure the government goes for someone else will immediately propose a new and higher figure. Prior to the government proposing a 20,000 figure a 10,000 figure was being bandied about. As soon as the government jumped past 10,000 to 20,000 it still wasn't enough. Now the proposal is 50,000 - and if the government jumped to 100,000 people will turn around say "why is the government only taking 100,000 when Germany is taking 800,000 this year we should take at least 200,000". And rinse and repeat.
I say that as someone who would happily support the UK taking more.
Comments
I can see the case for helping out if we're dealing with finite numbers. But, so long as Italy and the Balkan countries wave through an unlimited number of people to Northern Europe, I'm quite reluctant.
It is obvious that none of the other candidates inspired. They were not willing to spell out what they stood for. Liz Kendall was a modest exception to this but her ideas never got beyond a sound bite. I don't think the majority who voted for him really understood the extent to which he was really anti British. There was a desire for simplistic solutions and he promised them. As the others did not challenge him until way too late he got away with that.
Underlying the vote is the more fundamental problem for Labour: what does it offer in an age of austerity? Austerity will not end when the budget deficit goes (if it does), it needs to address the debt.
I think there is much that Labour can do on social mobility, the efficiency and effectiveness of public services, structural investment planning (where Osborne has of course pinched their idea because it was a good one) and housing but it has to be done in a context where money is extremely short. This requires the sort of hard thinking that I don't believe Corbyn is even capable of conceiving let alone doing.
The first party leader since David Lloyd George in 1931 to resign the whip of his own party while still leader? That would be an achievement to celebrate!
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/basil-iis-odd-childhood.html
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
http://www.unhcr.org/4922d4320.pdf
However: do you see any upper bounds for immigration? Do you think there is an upper limit to the numbers of people we can take?
Mr. Royale, cheers. Presumably, due to the time difference, the results will roll in (mostly) around 5-9am UK time?
Mr. Divvie, if we're judging by charity, then the UK is the largest donor to aid camps of all the European nations and second only to America globally.
But historically Britain has absorbed huge amounts of immigration. During the pogroms in Russia. Just before WW2. East African Asians. And, let's not forget around 750k Polish and East Europeans lust 10 years ago.
The migration in the 50's from black and brown Commonweatlh countries [ euphemistically called "new" commonwealth ] was slightly different. They were recruited.
What does not work is your approach of incentivising more people to make the crossing. That mentality is what has caused this sort of graph:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/bild-1058237-910163.html
Every news announcement that a Western country is taking more people is a signal for more people in the developing world to make the journey. As the people open to this signal constitute tens of millions, it only needs to prompt 0.1% more of them to be prompted into taking the trip to entirely counteract the extra ones we are taking. As it is likely to be more than 0.1% they are making, we would actually be increasing the problem for our EU neighbours. Just look at the graph for goodness' sake: Merkel's approach has caused an exponential increase. People said the cold weather would reduce the crossings, but they're actually increasing.
@StuartWilksHeeg: Predicted as "Cameron's poll tax moment" so far: the bedroom tax; cuts to Council Tax benefit; fracking; Trade Union Bill; tax credit cuts.
Which, funnily enough, isn't that different to our own election night results on timing.
For example, here are the latest 5 polls
Mainstreet Tories 33% Liberals 38% NDP 23%
Angus Reid Tories 31% Liberals 35% NDP 21%
Leger Tories 30% Liberals 38% NDP 22%
Nanos Tories 31% Liberals 37% NDP 23%
EKOS Tories 33.3% Liberals 33.7% NDP 22%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015
CBC today projects a larger Liberal lead with the Liberals on 140 seats, the Tories 120 and the NDP 74.
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html
It is possible Harper could make it tighter than most of the polls suggest, it is also possible the NDP vote could collapse further giving Trudeau an outside chance of a majority
And, of course, there will still be a seven figure sum of Syrian refugees, so we will have barely dented the issue. And we will increase refugee flows by more than 50,000 by doing it, so not reducing the problem in the EU. And all this at a cost many times greater of helping people in the camps, so actually reducing the benefit we are giving people.
Politics are no longer about class, but identity (race and religion). Our Party system and, I am increasingly coming to believe, Parliamentary democracy itself are poorly designed to handle political cleavage based on those identities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34565075
Yes, warmonger Bliar , it did ! As did one of your successors policy to get rid of Gaddafi. There are a million people here in Europe to prove your point.
If we base the argument on moral duty, then that does not just apply to us. Part of the irritation with the Bishops is that they seem to behave as if only the UK has some sort of moral duty and that it has been shirking it when it is at least arguable that (a) it has done more than other countries in terms of practical help; and (b) those countries which encourage people to risk death in trying to come here and which take no or little account of their own citizens' wishes are not being particularly moral either.
Firstly, the major problem of integration is not one of religion, but one of culture (although the two do interrelate to a certain extent). We have an friend who is an Indian Christian lady, and she is facing some significant familial issues that are due to culture rather than religion. Not many people in the UK would agree with her family on the issue, but they are Christians.
Secondly, it sends the wrong message: we need less religion in our state and laws, not more.
The only reason to agree to this is on a by-need basis: if the Christians are suffering in the camps because of their religion (and some reports show this might be the case), then perhaps they should be prioritised. But that should go for other religions and sects that may be unduly suffering in the camps.
So what is your solution ? Send them back ? In trains ?
And I have read the article, the Mail itself appears to be setting itself up as a standard for nasty sneering abuse of other people’s views.There’s no sbob like a reverse snob!
And while I don’t now, I used to live in an archetypical “suburban” area.
These countries need congratulating and helping.
I still see this as a value bet.
The election prediction project forecast is of value precisely because it doesn't feed off headline opinion polls. It does a bottom-up analysis of each riding to predict the overall result - so it's worth taking note of:
http://www.electionprediction.org/method.html
You are correct that the performance of the NDP is critical. But the Tory base is also loyal, and well-organised, and I don't see them dropping beneath 110 seats in almost any circumstances - bar a 1997 wipeout.
I see a Liberal majority as far too big an ask - it'd require over 135 gains, and I don't think they have the infrastructure for that.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
Antifrank: the lack of legal obligation works both ways though. We aren't under a legal obligation to take these people either, particularly when a significant number of them are not refugees in any case. Your argument is that we have a moral duty to help - but that equally applies to Turkey and other countries surrounding Syria.
If we base the argument on moral duty, then that does not just apply to us. Part of the irritation with the Bishops is that they seem to behave as if only the UK has some sort of moral duty and that it has been shirking it when it is at least arguable that (a) it has done more than other countries in terms of practical help; and (b) those countries which encourage people to risk death in trying to come here and which take no or little account of their own citizens' wishes are not being particularly moral either.
You may not have heard. Germany is taking on 800,000 refugees. In reality, 1.5m perhaps.
So what is your solution ? Send them back ? In trains ?
Again you keep asking the same question to which the answer is still yes. Unless you'd prefer them to be frogmarched back on foot?
In Canada, immigrants vote for all the three major parties.
It is astoundingly obvious that just tiny changes in the shares of these populations deciding to make the trip will cause current numbers to rocket further, certainly dwarfing any tens of thousands we might take.
This is a broken translation from Google Translate, but it's "Merkel's welcome reverberates around West Africa":
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article147568341/Merkels-Willkommensruf-hallt-bis-nach-Westafrika.html&edit-text=&act=url
A murmur runs through the crowd, as the number sets in the minds of Malian viewers and listeners. It is whispered: "Now must go out to." The suction effect of the German refugee policy is large in West Africa. In countries such as Mali or Niger Transit is the number of those who want to leave the country, has risen rapidly. Exact figures are not available. In Bamako is spoken on every street corner on the details of the German refugee situation. A sure indicator of the renewed interest in Germany.
It's the same effect across the Middle East:
When I ask about the subject on everyone's mind here — the migrant flood into Europe — he laughs. "We were just talking about this!" he says. Several of his friends just passed by to say farewell. They heard that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was welcoming Iraqis. "Each one said, 'I'm traveling,' 'I'm traveling,' 'I'm traveling,' " says Hussein. All want to be smuggled to Europe.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/05/437727526/with-eyes-on-europe-iraqis-line-up-to-leave-baghdad
You can be sure the effect is the same from Pakistan to the Congo.
I've given clear reasons why the "send 'em back" brigade haven't got a solution - there's nowhere to send 'em back to.
And no offence - Cyclefree and I have managed to disagree totally on these things without any personal disrespect and I hope it will continue - I also think it's a truly awful idea to attempt selectively to help Christian refugees. How would this be done, even if it was desirable? Would we test refugees on their knowledge of the catechism? Would we really ignore the suffering of a sick refugee because the healthy refugee in the next bed ticked the right religious box? If the idea is that the Christian refugee might have a higher risk if sent back, the test should be level of risk, not purported religious belief. And if it's to weed out Islamic fanatics, I'm sure ISIS is capable of giving some confiscated Bibles and crucifixes to its agents.
You might like to look at some economic indicators then.
We are taking 20,000 from the camps directly over the next five years. If there's a massive deterioration, those figures can be revised, but they must always be taken 'from source' and we must return immigrants to their point of embarkation.
No incentive, no reward and no encouragement whatsoever to landing in Europe.
Not that growth can get rid of structural deficits.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/afghanistan-brain-drain-migrant-crisis/406708/
Of course, the place is a year's trek to Europe, so the increased tide coming from there following Merkel's announcement won't even be showing up yet.
Antifrank, DavidL and Nick Palmer are wrong, totally wrong, absolutely wrong and fundamentally wrong.
What's the difference between 750k Poles and 750k Syrians ? I can think of one.
96% of the refugees are still in or around Syria. That's 24 refugees for every one in Europe and they are not in safe western conditions. That is the true crisis.
To give a single penny or a single home to assist those who are already in Europe means the Opportunity Cost of denying that assistance to those who truly need it. What possible reason do we have to prioritise the needs of those already safe versus the needs of those who are truly destitute and desperate?
Second, I don't think by giving refuge to such groups we are bringing more religion into our state and laws. We are giving refuge to individuals who, because of their religion, are being persecuted. That seems to me exactly what we should be doing. I argued the same thing when Muslims were being persecuted in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
And with that, my day beckons. Good morning.
I'm under no illusions that it's easy to win on that basis. But unless we have something we think valuable to achieve, I'm not that interested in whether we win or not.
If circumstances change, we can consider new proposals then.
To be clear, I am, as I always have been, very strongly in favour of supporting the refugees in camps in the region. Britain has done well there, unlike other EU states. The long term solution lies in the Middle East. But we have a pressing short term problem to address in Europe.
As for the idea that the 'level of the crisis makes it secondary', I am shocked to hear such wooly thinking from someone who was once in a position of governing power. The fact that the crisis is already so bad after your approach has been taken makes it even more important that we very carefully consider responses that could make it many, many times worse.
I see the latest poll sees the Tories taking over as official opposition in Holyrood. About time too.
But they don't. They just want us to hand-wring and take in all the hard-luck cases that make it to our shores from around the world.
So there will never be any end to it. Idiots.
Tell your propaganda somewhere else.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/indicators
Has been proven many times that the only way to discourage this is tough love. Shipped back ASAP or interned in a camp. The majority that you see on TV are not Syrian and are almost exclusively young men , all economic migrants who should not be there. As ever the bleeding heart liberals are making sure real refugees do not get help by wanting to throw money at millions and millions of economic migrants , most of whom will have shoved refugees out of the way. Soft thick headed whinging liberals will be the ruination of this country.
The desire by some for us to take more because it'll make us feel better is the foreign policy equivalent of Carmen Batmanghelidjh[sp] hugging children and giving them £70,000 a year as therapy. Do that, and every kid on the block will turn up for their therapeutic cash instalment. Do that, and everyone from a country not as nice as the UK or Germany will flood the continent.
I say that as someone who would happily support the UK taking more.