And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
I don't agree. I think these Syrian refugees want nothing more than a safe place to live, and will contribute to the countries that accept them. There's a difference between the mass immigration of economic migrants, and the immigration of genuine refugees.
Just as mass immigration from Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria, the North West Frontier, the Arabian Peninsula etc. has turned out well for European host nations. After all, they wanted nothing more than a safe place to live.
There's been mass immigration from Eritrea? Really? From Sudan? From the North West Frontier? Really? Afghanistan is a problem of our own making.
Labour Party sources have revealed that less than half of the 553,954 eligible to vote in the contest have returned their ballot forms, so far, and members are swinging away from the Corbyn bandwagon after a barrage of damaging revelations about the frontrunner.
I think it based on canvass returns/phone banking and the number of returned ballots/completed online submissions.
Still looks like wishful thinking to me. Members who will vote will have already voted, the people still waiting for ballot papers are going to be the £3ers who are massively pro Corbyn. Bad headlines have come too late to derail him.
Put portacabins that can house 10 people at each end of the 500 wealthiest streets in the UK (outside of London) and house 10,000 Syrian refugees there... The poorest in our own society don't deserve to wear the burden
Sam,that's the problem,if we take ten thousand refugees,my city of Bradford will take the brunt of them and the wealthiest places' won't be hardly touched.
We had the Rochdale MP complaining about to many asylum seekers been sent to his constituency this week.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
I don't agree. I think these Syrian refugees want nothing more than a safe place to live, and will contribute to the countries that accept them. There's a difference between the mass immigration of economic migrants, and the immigration of genuine refugees.
Just as mass immigration from Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria, the North West Frontier, the Arabian Peninsula etc. has turned out well for European host nations. After all, they wanted nothing more than a safe place to live.
There's been mass immigration from Eritrea? Really? From Sudan? From the North West Frontier? Really? Afghanistan is a problem of our own making.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
Labour Party sources have revealed that less than half of the 553,954 eligible to vote in the contest have returned their ballot forms, so far, and members are swinging away from the Corbyn bandwagon after a barrage of damaging revelations about the frontrunner.
I think it based on canvass returns/phone banking and the number of returned ballots/completed online submissions.
Still looks like wishful thinking to me. Members who will vote will have already voted, the people still waiting for ballot papers are going to be the £3ers who are massively pro Corbyn. Bad headlines have come too late to derail him.
My understanding is that the £3ers don't get ballot packs, they can only vote online.
Serious question: When Corbyn wins will the Labour party change European political parties? Either GUE/NGL or G-EFA would be more suited given how far left he is. Although this assumes he makes it to 2019 european elections but who knows...
No, the socialist group has plenty of parties not noticeably to the right of Corbyn. The G-EFA group is a mixed bag but more green and regionalist (e.g. the SNP) than red.
I disagree - the £3ers signed up to vote. I'd expect them to participate at 75%+
But why would they be more committed than full members paying £45?
I think £3 sign-ups are more likely to be mobile / not open their post / lose their ballot paper / forget etc.
Tend to agree with Plato. The £3 voters have *recently* done something specifically linked to voting in this election. Full members will in some cases have joined 10-20 years ago and been content to let the direct debit tick over without really taking much interest - some feel that it's just doing their bit for social justice like giving to Oxfam, but don't especially follow politics, and others have found it really hard to decide and may abstain deliberately. In my contested selection (members only) in 2014, turnout was only 75% or so - not bad but not amazing.
Labour Party sources have revealed that less than half of the 553,954 eligible to vote in the contest have returned their ballot forms, so far, and members are swinging away from the Corbyn bandwagon after a barrage of damaging revelations about the frontrunner.
I think it based on canvass returns/phone banking and the number of returned ballots/completed online submissions.
Still looks like wishful thinking to me. Members who will vote will have already voted, the people still waiting for ballot papers are going to be the £3ers who are massively pro Corbyn. Bad headlines have come too late to derail him.
My understanding is that the £3ers don't get ballot packs, they can only vote online.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be enough. It would be a life saved.
The harsh reality of the situation is that being on a long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a war-zone.
Taking in someone from a country in a warzone is not a life saved. The vast majority of people in even the worst warzones live.
The purpose of the asylum process is to protect people who are at risk of genocide or equivalents. Not anyone in a warzone. During the Second World War, we took the Jews in as refugees, not anyone from central Europe.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
I'm talking of Western Europe generally. Immigration from Somalia, the NWF, Sudan, Afghanistan to the UK is substantial. France is obviously the destination for Algerians.
Incidentally, why diss the use of SPADS? They're not civil service, not officers of the Crown, so they're not covered (unless things have changed). They bl**dy should be civil service IMHO, but as they're not, they're not covered by the regs.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
Germany's solution does not trump Britain's. The Syrians are in Hungary. They are safe. They're not going to be killed there. They would be safe in Tunisia or in Oman or in UAE or in Dubai or in Lebanon or in Jordan or in Algeria or in Turkey. There are plenty of solutions which do not involve assuming that the only place for these people to go are countries in Western Europe, no matter how much they want to go there.
And if some of those Western European countries want to invite some in, good for them. But they should not then expect others to follow suit. Or berate them if they choose not to.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be enough. It would be a life saved.
The harsh reality of the situation is that being on a long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a war-zone.
Taking in someone from a country in a warzone is not a life saved. The vast majority of people in even the worst warzones live.
The purpose of the asylum process is to protect people who are at risk of genocide or equivalents. Not anyone in a warzone. During the Second World War, we took the Jews in as refugees, not anyone from central Europe.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Where did you get that bizarre impression?
The WTC attack was perpetrated by 23 Saudi nationals working for an organisation run by a Saudi national, funded by money from Saudi Arabia and mainly trained in Sudan and Yemen and when located and killed or captured most of the organisations members have been found in Pakistan and Yemen.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
Hillary's email and polling difficulties and Biden's potential run have migrated from the web pages of policy-wonk websites like RCP and politico.com, to the papers of record (WP and NYT - also limited politically-engaged readerships) to the mass media outlets - tonight all four broadcast news channels tonight had stories on both in their 6 and 7 o'clock news. It's going mainstream.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum cases.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be enough. It would be a life saved.
The harsh reality of the situation is that being on a long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a war-zone.
The migrants are safe once they arrive in Hungary or Greece. They don't need to come to the UK, Germany or Sweden to be protected from war.
Some very interesting Russian metal and a surprising number of men in Breton style t-shirts are turning up in Syria.
Curiously the US is reportedly standing down Patriot anti aircraft & anti missile batteries based in Jordan and pointing at Syria. Wouldn't want to hit anything by accident I suppose.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be enough. It would be a life saved.
It's just silly to pretend that every person who claims asylum in Europe is somehow a life saved. There is a reduction in risk of death, certainly, so from an actuarial perspective there may be a fraction of a life saved. Ironically, for all those want to distinguish between "undeserving" plain-and-simple economic migrants, and "worthy" refugees, I'm not sure there'd be much difference in the fraction saved. People fleeing from a seriously messed-up but middle-income country like Syria had, pre-war, far higher life expectancies than people fleeing from Africa. By several decades, in fact. The Syrian civil war is pretty brutal but in several years has killed roughly one percent of the population, so back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the dent in life expectancy is only going to be of the order of magnitude that brings it into line with slightly poorer countries in the region.
If we were really desperate to save a life, we would be better to accept people for urgent medical treatment that their own country is unable to provide... regardless of whether the country they are coming from is stable or unstable, fair or persecutory. Of course, there are ill and infirm refugees fleeing from complete hell-holes, or who would flee if they had the ability to, but they are the very last people the current "free-for-all" European asylum "system" actually helps. And if we were utterly utilitarian, and wanted to save the maximal amount of lives possible within the confines of a limited budget, we would send pretty much all refugees away to camps back in their home region but away from immediate danger, and pour serious funds into making them safe and secure there. A million pounds can save more lives in a country where GDP per capita is $2000 than where it is $40,000.
(For what it's worth I'd prefer a more liberal approach to immigration, but what is going on in Europe right now is a systemic failure that is KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE in horrific circumstances in stifling, suffocating backs of lorries and in choking, gasping despair in the Med. For people fleeing Eritrea or West Africa, the current asylum set-up is probably producing, on net, more deaths than it is lives saved. There's a strong argument that encouraging more migration without radically shaking up the system to discourage dangerous transit is simply going to add to the death toll. Tidy allocations of so-many-thousand refugees per European country don't solve the issue - not only because it seems unlikely people will stay in Poland when friends and opportunities are in better supply in Germany nextdoor, say, but because it only produces an illusion of control. Most of the fatal chaos is in the journey to Europe in the first place.)
Germany's solution does not trump Britain's. The Syrians are in Hungary. They are safe. They're not going to be killed there. They would be safe in Tunisia or in Oman or in UAE or in Dubai or in Lebanon or in Jordan or in Algeria or in Turkey. There are plenty of solutions which do not involve assuming that the only place for these people to go are countries in Western Europe, no matter how much they want to go there.
And if some of those Western European countries want to invite some in, good for them. But they should not then expect others to follow suit. Or berate them if they choose not to.
It does. No one is denying the Syrians in Hungary are safe. But Hungary as far as I'm aware don't want them. And as far as I'm also aware, is that many neighboring countries to Syria have also accepted refugees, but they are at breaking point. They can't house everyone. And I doubt after that ISIS attack that Tunisia can be called 'safe'.
And if those other European countries happened to get involved in Middle East affairs, then they are within reason to expect them to follow suit.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
Yes, it did work out very well. We dramatically weakened the Taliban, and destroyed a major safe haven for Al-Qaeda, ultimately killing many of their top commanders and Bin Laden himself.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be enough. It would be a life saved.
It's just silly to pretend that every person who claims asylum in Europe is somehow a life saved. There is a reduction in risk of death, certainly, so from an actuarial perspective there may be a fraction of a life saved. Ironically, for all those want to distinguish between "undeserving" plain-and-simple economic migrants, and "worthy" refugees, I'm not sure there'd be much difference in the fraction saved. People fleeing from a seriously messed-up but middle-income country like Syria had, pre-war, far higher life expectancies than people fleeing from Africa. By several decades, in fact. The Syrian civil war is pretty brutal but in several years has killed roughly one percent of the population, so back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the dent in life expectancy is only going to be of the order of magnitude that brings it into line with slightly poorer countries in the region. ....
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
And the point you keep on missing is that they are safe the moment they leave Syria. They don't need to get to Britain to be safe.
They may prefer Britain to Turkey or Lebanon or Hungary. But a preference does not make you a refugee. And it is up to Britain to decide whether or not it wants to invite any of these people in. British governments should, when making such decisions, think of British people first.
Some very interesting Russian metal and a surprising number of men in Breton style t-shirts are turning up in Syria.
Curiously the US is reportedly standing down Patriot anti aircraft & anti missile batteries based in Jordan and pointing at Syria. Wouldn't want to hit anything by accident I suppose.
Hi, Yokel. What is the implication of the Breton-style Ts? Spetsnaz?
And if you're going to invite people in - what are we going to do with them? Handwaving the issue away doesn't make it so.
We already have thousands in B&Bs. I can't help feeling you aren't applying your critical faculties here. It's really easy to spend money we don't have and give homes to the latest fashionable cause. What about the next lot and the next and the next?
Where I live it's about 11yrs to get a council home now.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be...It would be a life saved.
It's just silly to pretend that every person who claims asylum in Europe is somehow a life saved. There is a reduction in risk of death, certainly, so from an actuarial perspective there may be a fraction of a life saved. Ironically, for all those want to distinguish between "undeserving" plain-and-simple economic migrants, and "worthy" refugees, I'm not sure there'd be much difference in the fraction saved. People fleeing from a seriously messed-up but middle-income country like Syria had, pre-war, far higher life expectancies than people fleeing from Africa. By several decades, in fact. The Syrian civil war is pretty brutal but in several years has killed roughly one percent of the population, so back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the dent in life expectancy is only going to be of the order of magnitude that brings it into line with slightly poorer countries in the region.
If we were really desperate to save a life, we would be better to accept people for urgent medical treatment that their own country is unable to provide... regardless of whether the country they are coming from is stable or unstable, fair or persecutory. Of course, there are ill and infirm refugees fleeing from complete hell-holes, or who would flee if they had the ability to, but they are the very last people the current "free-for-all" European asylum "system" actually helps. And if we were utterly utilitarian, and wanted to save the maximal amount of lives possible within the confines of a limited budget, we would send pretty much all refugees away to camps back in their home region but away from immediate danger, and pour serious funds into making them safe and secure there. A million pounds can save more lives in a country where GDP per capita is $2000 than where it is $40,000.
(For what it's worth I'd prefer a more liberal approach to immigration, but what is going on in Europe right now is a systemic failure that is KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE in horrific circumstances in stifling, suffocating backs of lorries and in choking, gasping despair in the Med. For people fleeing Eritrea or West Africa, the current asylum set-up is probably producing, on net, more deaths than it is lives saved. There's a strong argument that encouraging more migration without radically shaking up the system to discourage dangerous transit is simply going to add to the death toll. Tidy allocations of so-many-thousand refugees per European country don't solve the issue - not only because it seems unlikely people will stay in Poland when friends and opportunities are in better supply in Germany nextdoor, say, but because it only produces an illusion of control. Most of the fatal chaos is in the journey to Europe in the first place.)
The migrants are safe once they arrive in Hungary or Greece. They don't need to come to the UK, Germany or Sweden to be protected from war.
They are safe in those countries, however they can't take all the migrants. That's why the proposal is that not all migrants go to the UK, Germany or Sweden, but that EU countries take a share. And as far as I'm aware Hungary doesn't want these migrants.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Where did you get that bizarre impression?
The WTC attack was perpetrated by 23 Saudi nationals working for an organisation run by a Saudi national, funded by money from Saudi Arabia and mainly trained in Sudan and Yemen and when located and killed or captured most of the organisations members have been found in Pakistan and Yemen.
The head of the organisation which planned and carried out the attack was resident in and being given shelter by the Afghan government at the time.
The migrants are safe once they arrive in Hungary or Greece. They don't need to come to the UK, Germany or Sweden to be protected from war.
They are safe in those countries, however they can't take all the migrants. That's why the proposal is that not all migrants go to the UK, Germany or Sweden, but that EU countries take a share. And as far as I'm aware Hungary doesn't want these migrants.
Why should they just be shared out between EU countries? What about Middle Eastern countries, such as the ones far wealthier than us?
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
I'm talking of Western Europe generally. Immigration from Somalia, the NWF, Sudan, Afghanistan to the UK is substantial. France is obviously the destination for Algerians.
Doesn't France have colonial history regarding Algeria? It shouldn't be surprised when Algerians turn up on their door-step. Likewise with Afghanistan, if we didn't want Afghans coming here then we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
Yes, it did work out very well. We dramatically weakened the Taliban, and destroyed a major safe haven for Al-Qaeda, ultimately killing many of their top commanders and Bin Laden himself.
Al-Qaeda's main safe have was and is today Yemen where they have the tacit support of the Yemeni government under Saleh and his successor. To protect Al-Qaeda's from the threat of the Houthi insurgency in Yemen, the Saudis have now invaded.
Scotland has a very low population density. Maybe they should offer to take in a few thousand Syrian refugees rather than the already overpopulated south-east of England. The same is true of Wales to a lesser extent.
Germany's solution does not trump Britain's. The Syrians are in Hungary. They are safe. They're not going to be killed there. They would be safe in Tunisia or in Oman or in UAE or in Dubai or in Lebanon or in Jordan or in Algeria or in Turkey. There are plenty of solutions which do not involve assuming that the only place for these people to go are countries in Western Europe, no matter how much they want to go there.
And if some of those Western European countries want to invite some in, good for them. But they should not then expect others to follow suit. Or berate them if they choose not to.
It does. No one is denying the Syrians in Hungary are safe. But Hungary as far as I'm aware don't want them. And as far as I'm also aware, is that many neighboring countries to Syria have also accepted refugees, but they are at breaking point. They can't house everyone. And I doubt after that ISIS attack that Tunisia can be called 'safe'.
And if those other European countries happened to get involved in Middle East affairs, then they are within reason to expect them to follow suit.
The criticism is that we did *not* get involved in Syria, so it's all our fault.
Obviously, if we had got involved in Syria, it would be all our fault also.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
And the point you keep on missing is that they are safe the moment they leave Syria. They don't need to get to Britain to be safe.
They may prefer Britain to Turkey or Lebanon or Hungary. But a preference does not make you a refugee. And it is up to Britain to decide whether or not it wants to invite any of these people in. British governments should, when making such decisions, think of British people first.
I never said they needed to get to Britain to be safe - simply that the extent of the migrant crisis is as such obviously many countries will have to take in migrants (one can't do it on their own), and that we have an obligation to do something.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
I'm talking of Western Europe generally. Immigration from Somalia, the NWF, Sudan, Afghanistan to the UK is substantial. France is obviously the destination for Algerians.
Doesn't France have colonial history regarding Algeria? It shouldn't be surprised when Algerians turn up on their door-step. Likewise with Afghanistan, if we didn't want Afghans coming here then we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Where did you get that bizarre impression?
The WTC attack was perpetrated by 23 Saudi nationals working for an organisation run by a Saudi national, funded by money from Saudi Arabia and mainly trained in Sudan and Yemen and when located and killed or captured most of the organisations members have been found in Pakistan and Yemen.
The head of the organisation which planned and carried out the attack was resident in and being given shelter by the Afghan government at the time.
Strange, I don't recall any period when the Afghan government controlled Yemen or Pakistan (where Al-Qaeda actually were).
People need to stop confusing the propaganda with what actually happened. I supposed you believe he really was hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. Yet despite being subject to the biggest manhunt in history was actually killed in a rather spacious private residence in Pakistan
And if you're going to invite people in - what are we going to do with them? Handwaving the issue away doesn't make it so.
We already have thousands in B&Bs. I can't help feeling you aren't applying your critical faculties here. It's really easy to spend money we don't have and give homes to the latest fashionable cause. What about the next lot and the next and the next?
Where I live it's about 11yrs to get a council home now.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
It's just silly to pretend that every person who claims asylum in Europe is somehow a life saved. There is a reduction in risk of death, certainly, so from an actuarial perspective there may be a fraction of a life saved. Ironically, for all those want to distinguish between "undeserving" plain-and-simple economic migrants, and "worthy" refugees, I'm not sure there'd be much difference in the fraction saved. People fleeing from a seriously messed-up but middle-income country like Syria had, pre-war, far higher life expectancies than people fleeing from Africa. By several decades, in fact. The Syrian civil war is pretty brutal but in several years has killed roughly one percent of the population, so back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the dent in life expectancy is only going to be of the order of magnitude that brings it into line with slightly poorer countries in the region.
If we were really desperate to save a life, we would be better to accept people for urgent medical treatment that their own country is unable to provide... regardless of whether the country they are coming from is stable or unstable, fair or persecutory. Of course, there are ill and infirm refugees fleeing from complete hell-holes, or who would flee if they had the ability to, but they are the very last people the current "free-for-all" European asylum "system" actually helps. And if we were utterly utilitarian, and wanted to save the maximal amount of lives possible within the confines of a limited budget, we would send pretty much all refugees away to camps back in their home region but away from immediate danger, and pour serious funds into making them safe and secure there. A million pounds can save more lives in a country where GDP per capita is $2000 than where it is $40,000.
(For what it's worth I'd prefer a more liberal approach to immigration, but what is going on in Europe right now is a systemic failure that is KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE in horrific circumstances in stifling, suffocating backs of lorries and in choking, gasping despair in the Med. For people fleeing Eritrea or West Africa, the current asylum set-up is probably producing, on net, more deaths than it is lives saved. There's a strong argument that encouraging more migration without radically shaking up the system to discourage dangerous transit is simply going to add to the death toll. Tidy allocations of so-many-thousand refugees per European country don't solve the issue - not only because it seems unlikely people will stay in Poland when friends and opportunities are in better supply in Germany nextdoor, say, but because it only produces an illusion of control. Most of the fatal chaos is in the journey to Europe in the first place.)
The migrants are safe once they arrive in Hungary or Greece. They don't need to come to the UK, Germany or Sweden to be protected from war.
They are safe in those countries, however they can't take all the migrants. That's why the proposal is that not all migrants go to the UK, Germany or Sweden, but that EU countries take a share. And as far as I'm aware Hungary doesn't want these migrants.
Why should they just be shared out between EU countries? What about Middle Eastern countries, such as the ones far wealthier than us?
I agree that they should also be shared out with rich Middle Eastern countries as well.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
Yes, it did work out very well. We dramatically weakened the Taliban, and destroyed a major safe haven for Al-Qaeda, ultimately killing many of their top commanders and Bin Laden himself.
Yeah, and we de-stablised the Middle East, and something just as bad, or even worse than the Taliban has arisen: ISIS.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
I'm talking of Western Europe generally. Immigration from Somalia, the NWF, Sudan, Afghanistan to the UK is substantial. France is obviously the destination for Algerians.
Doesn't France have colonial history regarding Algeria? It shouldn't be surprised when Algerians turn up on their door-step. Likewise with Afghanistan, if we didn't want Afghans coming here then we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan.
Germany's solution does not trump Britain's. The Syrians are in Hungary. They are safe. They're not going to be killed there. They would be safe in Tunisia or in Oman or in UAE or in Dubai or in Lebanon or in Jordan or in Algeria or in Turkey. There are plenty of solutions which do not involve assuming that the only place for these people to go are countries in Western Europe, no matter how much they want to go there.
And if some of those Western European countries want to invite some in, good for them. But they should not then expect others to follow suit. Or berate them if they choose not to.
It does. No one is denying the Syrians in Hungary are safe. But Hungary as far as I'm aware don't want them. And as far as I'm also aware, is that many neighboring countries to Syria have also accepted refugees, but they are at breaking point. They can't house everyone. And I doubt after that ISIS attack that Tunisia can be called 'safe'.
And if those other European countries happened to get involved in Middle East affairs, then they are within reason to expect them to follow suit.
Exactly: the Syrians in Hungary are safe. So they are not refugees. So they will have to - if they want to go elsewhere - take their place in the queue with everyone else. Not seek to make some prior claim based on a status they no longer have.
Other countries in the Middle East are not full and not at bursting point.
And if Tunisia is not safe because of 2 attacks, then neither is France nor Britain nor Belgium nor Spain, all of whom have faced far more vicious attacks than those in Tunisia.
Tunisia is perfectly safe for Muslims, which is what most of these people are.
Germany's solution does not trump Britain's. The Syrians are in Hungary. They are safe. They're not going to be killed there. They would be safe in Tunisia or in Oman or in UAE or in Dubai or in Lebanon or in Jordan or in Algeria or in Turkey. There are plenty of solutions which do not involve assuming that the only place for these people to go are countries in Western Europe, no matter how much they want to go there.
And if some of those Western European countries want to invite some in, good for them. But they should not then expect others to follow suit. Or berate them if they choose not to.
It does. No one is denying the Syrians in Hungary are safe. But Hungary as far as I'm aware don't want them. And as far as I'm also aware, is that many neighboring countries to Syria have also accepted refugees, but they are at breaking point. They can't house everyone. And I doubt after that ISIS attack that Tunisia can be called 'safe'.
And if those other European countries happened to get involved in Middle East affairs, then they are within reason to expect them to follow suit.
The criticism is that we did *not* get involved in Syria, so it's all our fault.
Obviously, if we had got involved in Syria, it would be all our fault also.
We shouldn't have got involved in Syria. We shouldn't have got involved in Iraq either.
I can attempt to make a souffle with the wrong ingredients. It will not work.
Attempts are meaningless. Results are what matter. Accepting migrants at the level Merkel has signalled will end with uncontrolled amounts. Demanding others follow suit will not work. How is telling people what to do solving the problem? How is encouraging large numbers to come to Europe going to stop people drowning in the Med. Would surely make it worse....
I'm still a bit flabbergasted why you wouldn't, if in a dire situation, especially with family, settle in Turkey.....
If I had to flea I'd try Wales/Ireland/Scotland in that order first, then maybe France. But not, for example for distance sake, Saudi.
This may sound callous; it is not meant to be. Problems need solving, not crying over. Solutions take time; they're rarely solved with the easiest or most painless answer.
Isn't Turkey at risk of ISIS attacks?
Merkel's solution isn't perfect. But it will help the lives of many people. That is how, at least partly it does help.
Tiurkey has a well armed military of nigh on 500,000, no.2 in NATO after USA. I think ISIS might be aware of that. Whatever else they are they know not to pick a fight they can't win.
And if you're going to invite people in - what are we going to do with them? Handwaving the issue away doesn't make it so.
We already have thousands in B&Bs. I can't help feeling you aren't applying your critical faculties here. It's really easy to spend money we don't have and give homes to the latest fashionable cause. What about the next lot and the next and the next?
Where I live it's about 11yrs to get a council home now.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
Yes, it did work out very well. We dramatically weakened the Taliban, and destroyed a major safe haven for Al-Qaeda, ultimately killing many of their top commanders and Bin Laden himself.
Yeah, and we de-stablised the Middle East, and something just as bad, or even worse than the Taliban has arisen: ISIS.
The Middle East has been unstable for the best part of a century (at least). It did not become unstable as a result of anything done in 2001. Its instability arises principally from home grown causes.
Germany's solution does not trump Britain's. The Syrians are in Hungary. They are safe. They're not going to be killed there. They would be safe in Tunisia or in Oman or in UAE or in Dubai or in Lebanon or in Jordan or in Algeria or in Turkey. There are plenty of solutions which do not involve assuming that the only place for these people to go are countries in Western Europe, no matter how much they want to go there.
And if some of those Western European countries want to invite some in, good for them. But they should not then expect others to follow suit. Or berate them if they choose not to.
It does. No one is denying the Syrians in Hungary are safe. But Hungary as far as I'm aware don't want them. And as far as I'm also aware, is that many neighboring countries to Syria have also accepted refugees, but they are at breaking point. They can't house everyone. And I doubt after that ISIS attack that Tunisia can be called 'safe'.
And if those other European countries happened to get involved in Middle East affairs, then they are within reason to expect them to follow suit.
Exactly: the Syrians in Hungary are safe. So they are not refugees. So they will have to - if they want to go elsewhere - take their place in the queue with everyone else. Not seek to make some prior claim based on a status they no longer have.
Other countries in the Middle East are not full and not at bursting point.
And if Tunisia is not safe because of 2 attacks, then neither is France nor Britain nor Belgium nor Spain, all of whom have faced far more vicious attacks than those in Tunisia.
Tunisia is perfectly safe for Muslims, which is what most of these people are.
They are refugees, since Hungary doesn't plan on allowing them to stay. If Hungary were, then we'd be having a different conversation.
Other Middle Eastern countries may not be full but they have taken in many refugees - Turkey has taken in 1.7m refugees. With the crisis escalating, I doubt that they can take in all refugees.
And the difference between Tunisia and France, Britain is that it is far more vulnerable to ISIS coming in than a country with a channel separating from the rest of Europe.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
Have you heard of the "Voyage of the Damned"? It's not true that Britain "did all it could" to protect the Jews from the Nazis in the run-up to WW2 - it's a national comforting myth we seem to have concocted from the Kindertransport and Academic Assistance Council and various other bits of good work that Brits did. But there were people we sent back, and many of them died, and we seem to have done our damnedest to forget them.
In fact even during the height of WW2, when Jewish refugees were fleeing in unseaworthy boats - even 19th century sailing ships - from the shores of Europe, across the Med to Mandatory Palestine, we still imposed a tight quota on Jewish migration (an attempt to dampen ethnic tension after the Arab Revolt).
The migrants are safe once they arrive in Hungary or Greece. They don't need to come to the UK, Germany or Sweden to be protected from war.
They are safe in those countries, however they can't take all the migrants. That's why the proposal is that not all migrants go to the UK, Germany or Sweden, but that EU countries take a share. And as far as I'm aware Hungary doesn't want these migrants.
Why should they just be shared out between EU countries? What about Middle Eastern countries, such as the ones far wealthier than us?
I agree that they should also be shared out with rich Middle Eastern countries as well.
But that is not what is been talked about,especially from the media or leftwing loons who think Britain should take in the world.
Some on here think the solution will be solved if Britain takes in thousands more,misguided fools.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
Yes, it did work out very well. We dramatically weakened the Taliban, and destroyed a major safe haven for Al-Qaeda, ultimately killing many of their top commanders and Bin Laden himself.
Yeah, and we de-stablised the Middle East, and something just as bad, or even worse than the Taliban has arisen: ISIS.
The Middle East has been unstable for the best part of a century (at least). It did not become unstable as a result of anything done in 2001. Its instability arises principally from home grown causes.
It's always been unstable, but we've helped make it more unstable.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
I don't agree. I think these Syrian refugees want nothing more than a safe place to live, and will contribute to the countries that accept them. There's a difference between the mass immigration of economic migrants, and the immigration of genuine refugees.
Genuine refugees want to be safe. Will they be safer in Germany than anywhere else in the EU. No? So why do they chant "Germany, Germany" in English outside the Budapest railway station. You're a straw in the wind.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
I'm talking of Western Europe generally. Immigration from Somalia, the NWF, Sudan, Afghanistan to the UK is substantial. France is obviously the destination for Algerians.
Doesn't France have colonial history regarding Algeria? It shouldn't be surprised when Algerians turn up on their door-step. Likewise with Afghanistan, if we didn't want Afghans coming here then we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan.
This is one of the favourite arguments of the left and it doesn't make any sense to me at all.
If Algerians fought so hard to be independent from France, why do so many of them want to return themselves to French rule by moving to France? Makes a mockery of the concept of independence from colonialism.
Also that argument is a form of "two wrongs make a right" which I assume you don't believe with regard to other issues such as capital punishment.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Where did you get that bizarre impression?
The WTC attack was perpetrated by 23 Saudi nationals working for an organisation run by a Saudi national, funded by money from Saudi Arabia and mainly trained in Sudan and Yemen and when located and killed or captured most of the organisations members have been found in Pakistan and Yemen.
The head of the organisation which planned and carried out the attack was resident in and being given shelter by the Afghan government at the time.
Strange, I don't recall any period when the Afghan government controlled Yemen or Pakistan (where Al-Qaeda actually were).
People need to stop confusing the propaganda with what actually happened. I supposed you believe he really was hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. Yet despite being subject to the biggest manhunt in history was actually killed in a rather spacious private residence in Pakistan
He was killed some time later. And the Taliban in Afghanistan and the government in Pakistan were rather more closely intertwined than you seem to realise.
And if you're going to invite people in - what are we going to do with them? Handwaving the issue away doesn't make it so.
We already have thousands in B&Bs. I can't help feeling you aren't applying your critical faculties here. It's really easy to spend money we don't have and give homes to the latest fashionable cause. What about the next lot and the next and the next?
Where I live it's about 11yrs to get a council home now.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
I don't consider the biggest crisis to hit Europe since WW2 the latest fashion cause.
And it would be nothing compared to the crisis that would be felt within a couple of years if there was a massive influx of labour, welfare claims, often illiberal views and alien cultures into Europe without even thinkng about it before hand.
Edit: actuslly, the point is we don't yet have a european migrant crisis. We might if Merkel's harebrained policy takes hold.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
I don't agree. I think these Syrian refugees want nothing more than a safe place to live, and will contribute to the countries that accept them. There's a difference between the mass immigration of economic migrants, and the immigration of genuine refugees.
Genuine refugees want to be safe. Will they be safer in Germany than anywhere else in the EU. No? So why do they chant "Germany, Germany" in English outside the Budapest railway station. You're a straw in the wind.
Because Hungary doesn't want them, and Germany is the one welcoming them the most. That's why.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
I'm talking of Western Europe generally. Immigration from Somalia, the NWF, Sudan, Afghanistan to the UK is substantial. France is obviously the destination for Algerians.
Doesn't France have colonial history regarding Algeria? It shouldn't be surprised when Algerians turn up on their door-step. Likewise with Afghanistan, if we didn't want Afghans coming here then we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan.
This is one of the favourite arguments of the left and it doesn't make any sense to me at all.
If Algerians fought so hard to be independent from France, why do so many of them want to return themselves to French rule by moving to France? Makes a mockery of the concept of independence from colonialism.
Probably because France offers better life-opportunities than living in Algeria, before and after France rule, that's why.
The migrants are safe once they arrive in Hungary or Greece. They don't need to come to the UK, Germany or Sweden to be protected from war.
They are safe in those countries, however they can't take all the migrants. That's why the proposal is that not all migrants go to the UK, Germany or Sweden, but that EU countries take a share. And as far as I'm aware Hungary doesn't want these migrants.
Why should they just be shared out between EU countries? What about Middle Eastern countries, such as the ones far wealthier than us?
I agree that they should also be shared out with rich Middle Eastern countries as well.
But that is not what is been talked about,especially from the media or leftwing loons who think Britain should take in the world.
Some on here think the solution will be solved if Britain takes in thousands more,misguided fools.
I think Britain should try its best to help solve the crisis, not take in the whole. That's impossible.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
Yes, it did work out very well. We dramatically weakened the Taliban, and destroyed a major safe haven for Al-Qaeda, ultimately killing many of their top commanders and Bin Laden himself.
Yeah, and we de-stablised the Middle East, and something just as bad, or even worse than the Taliban has arisen: ISIS.
The Middle East has been unstable for the best part of a century (at least). It did not become unstable as a result of anything done in 2001. Its instability arises principally from home grown causes.
It's always been unstable, but we've helped make it more unstable.
We have not helped make it more stable. Frankly, I doubt if there is anything we can do. But I don't buy the rather egocentric European argument that the Middle East's problems are caused by Europe.
Some very interesting Russian metal and a surprising number of men in Breton style t-shirts are turning up in Syria.
Curiously the US is reportedly standing down Patriot anti aircraft & anti missile batteries based in Jordan and pointing at Syria. Wouldn't want to hit anything by accident I suppose.
Hi, Yokel. What is the implication of the Breton-style Ts? Spetsnaz?
The problem with the Breton is its become a bit of a wholesale wear; Spetsnatz, Airborne, marine infantry and or maybe just some blokes who are on the ground advisors. Question is, why now from the Russians. Whilst they have shipped kit to Assad before we are talking a handful of high performance aircraft and choppers, real force multiplier kit. What I'm not sure of is who is flying it.
Its the sudden appearance of what also appear to be reasonable numbers of actual shirts thats even more curious. Is it a trip wire function to deter other 3rd parties going too deep into Syria by air or ground, is it simply a bolster to Assads' own forces and its just a larger than expected number of technicians and brains to help out or do the Russians intend to use their own bodies in fighting.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
We invaded Afghanistan as a defensive response to an attack on a fellow NATO member. The Afghan government was sheltering the sub-state organization that attacked her.
So bombing Afghan was a solution which really worked out then....
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
Yes, it did work out very well. We dramatically weakened the Taliban, and destroyed a major safe haven for Al-Qaeda, ultimately killing many of their top commanders and Bin Laden himself.
Yeah, and we de-stablised the Middle East, and something just as bad, or even worse than the Taliban has arisen: ISIS.
The Middle East has been unstable for the best part of a century (at least). It did not become unstable as a result of anything done in 2001. Its instability arises principally from home grown causes.
It's always been unstable, but we've helped make it more unstable.
We have not helped make it more stable. Frankly, I doubt if there is anything we can do. But I don't buy the rather egocentric European argument that the Middle East's problems are caused by Europe.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum seekers already here.
Numbers are meaningless here. It's all about posturing for political effect, by Merkel in particular. Merkel has invited in 800,000 and each immigrant reckons well there are 799,999 places left after me. As I said in a previous post, we have to find a way of pressing the pause button to give everyone time to think. Decisions made now, without thought, will have huge consequences. Thankfully Miss A is very low on her learning curve but doesn't seem to be learning much.
*snipped to avoid the dreaded "post too long" error
The best put comment yet - bravo
+1 I don't know how you can improve on a post such as that - maybe gratuitously throw in an engineering video as well?
Thanks all.
I actually thought my earlier analogy about the toy in the road was better. I'm the sort of spoilsport who will, if I see a balloon or ball or toy in the middle of a busy street, cross over and retrieve or perhaps even destroy it, because I don't want to read in the local paper the next day that some kid has dashed across the road to pick it up and got run over. If somebody deliberately puts toys in the middle of a road, then brags about how much their generous donation to local children shows they love kids, they are not about to get a card from me saying how much I love her for it. Somebody who goes to local children's homes, finding the most vulnerable and unloved and out-of-luck kids, then gives them a gift... that kind of targeting I can admire.
The migrants are safe once they arrive in Hungary or Greece. They don't need to come to the UK, Germany or Sweden to be protected from war.
They are safe in those countries, however they can't take all the migrants. That's why the proposal is that not all migrants go to the UK, Germany or Sweden, but that EU countries take a share. And as far as I'm aware Hungary doesn't want these migrants.
Why should they just be shared out between EU countries? What about Middle Eastern countries, such as the ones far wealthier than us?
I agree that they should also be shared out with rich Middle Eastern countries as well.
But that is not what is been talked about,especially from the media or leftwing loons who think Britain should take in the world.
Some on here think the solution will be solved if Britain takes in thousands more,misguided fools.
I think Britain should try its best to help solve the crisis, not take in the whole. That's impossible.
Out of interest, is it the theory or the stragegy of the following that you disagree with:
Theory: if not one more migrant came to Europe tomorrow, we could solve this quite easily and relatively quickly.
Strategy: stop migrants entering Europe, and particularly from passage via the Med.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC. B
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
I'm talking of Western Europe generally. Immigration from Somalia, the NWF, Sudan, Afghanistan to the UK is substantial. France is obviously the destination for Algerians.
Doesn't France have colonial history regarding Algeria? It shouldn't be surprised when Algerians turn up on their door-step. Likewise with Afghanistan, if we didn't want Afghans coming here then we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan.
This is one of the favourite arguments of the left and it doesn't make any sense to me at all.
If Algerians fought so hard to be independent from France, why do so many of them want to return themselves to French rule by moving to France? Makes a mockery of the concept of independence from colonialism.
Probably because France offers better life-opportunities than living in Algeria, before and after France rule, that's why.
And France now has a huge problem in its banlieues of disaffected Muslim youths, despite the better life France offers.
It was foolish of France to permit Arab migration into France on the scale that it did. We should not repeat the mistake. There is no reason to suppose it will end with any better outcome than in France
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
I don't agree. I think these Syrian refugees want nothing more than a safe place to live, and will contribute to the countries that accept them. There's a difference between the mass immigration of economic migrants, and the immigration of genuine refugees.
Genuine refugees want to be safe. Will they be safer in Germany than anywhere else in the EU. No? So why do they chant "Germany, Germany" in English outside the Budapest railway station. You're a straw in the wind.
Because Hungary doesn't want them, and Germany is the one welcoming them the most. That's why.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum cases.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be enough. It would be a life saved.
What naive, idiotic tosh, So all Cameron has to say is "okay, we'll take 1" and everyone is happy. Foolish girl.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum seekers already here.
Numbers are meaningless here. It's all about posturing for political effect, by Merkel in particular. Merkel has invited in 800,000 and each immigrant reckons well there are 799,999 places left after me. As I said in a previous post, we have to find a way of pressing the pause button to give everyone time to think. Decisions made now, without thought, will have huge consequences. Thankfully Miss A is very low on her learning curve but doesn't seem to be learning much.
Botswana for example is safe and prosperous for an African country and also has a very low population density. They could offer to take in refugees.
Let's not mention the fact that issues of racism between black Africans and Arabs might come into play if a country like Botswana took in Syrian refugees. Because racism is a concept which is only valid with regard to white people.
How often does one see a black/Asian couple on the streets of London? Hardly ever. Another point which mustn't be talked about.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC. B
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
I'm talking of Western Europe generally. Immigration from Somalia, the NWF, Sudan, Afghanistan to the UK is substantial. France is obviously the destination for Algerians.
Doesn't France have colonial history regarding Algeria? It shouldn't be surprised when Algerians turn up on their door-step. Likewise with Afghanistan, if we didn't want Afghans coming here then we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan.
This is one of the favourite arguments of the left and it doesn't make any sense to me at all.
If Algerians fought so hard to be independent from France, why do so many of them want to return themselves to French rule by moving to France? Makes a mockery of the concept of independence from colonialism.
Probably because France offers better life-opportunities than living in Algeria, before and after France rule, that's why.
And France now has a huge problem in its banlieues of disaffected Muslim youths, despite the better life France offers.
It was foolish of France to permit Arab migration into France on the scale that it did. We should not repeat the mistake. There is no reason to suppose it will end with any better outcome than in France
France shouldn't have gone and colonised countries such as Algeria, if it didn't want Arab immigration. And France's problem is not one-sided, either. There are many countries in Europe with disaffected Muslisms, but they don't vote for the likes of Marine Le Pen. France has an issue in general with immigration, even those from non-Muslim backgrounds.
I'm surprised someone in public life would openly use such inflammatory, xenophobic, supremacist language.
The debate about whether the use of the term "regionalist" to describe the SNP is an insult or a neutral description has been going on for some time: I cleave to the latter point, you the former, and neither of us are going to change our minds. However , given the tenor of tonight's discussion of refugees dying en masse in appalling conditions, your choice of words - "inflammatory, xenophobic, supremacist" - may be thought to be disproportionate.
The migrants are safe once they arrive in Hungary or Greece. They don't need to come to the UK, Germany or Sweden to be protected from war.
They are safe in those countries, however they can't take all the migrants. That's why the proposal is that not all migrants go to the UK, Germany or Sweden, but that EU countries take a share. And as far as I'm aware Hungary doesn't want these migrants.
Why should they just be shared out between EU countries? What about Middle Eastern countries, such as the ones far wealthier than us?
I agree that they should also be shared out with rich Middle Eastern countries as well.
But that is not what is been talked about,especially from the media or leftwing loons who think Britain should take in the world.
Some on here think the solution will be solved if Britain takes in thousands more,misguided fools.
I think Britain should try its best to help solve the crisis, not take in the whole. That's impossible.
Out of interest, is it the theory or the stragegy of the following that you disagree with:
Theory: if not one more migrant came to Europe tomorrow, we could solve this quite easily and relatively quickly.
Strategy: stop migrants entering Europe, and particularly from passage via the Med.
Germany's solution does not trump Britain's. The Syrians are in Hungary. They are safe. They're not going to be killed there. They would be safe in Tunisia or in Oman or in UAE or in Dubai or in Lebanon or in Jordan or in Algeria or in Turkey. There are plenty of solutions which do not involve assuming that the only place for these people to go are countries in Western Europe, no matter how much they want to go there.
And if some of those Western European countries want to invite some in, good for them. But they should not then expect others to follow suit. Or berate them if they choose not to.
It does. No one is denying the Syrians in Hungary are safe. But Hungary as far as I'm aware don't want them. And as far as I'm also aware, is that many neighboring countries to Syria have also accepted refugees, but they are at breaking point. They can't house everyone. And I doubt after that ISIS attack that Tunisia can be called 'safe'.
And if those other European countries happened to get involved in Middle East affairs, then they are within reason to expect them to follow suit.
Exactly: the Syrians in Hungary are safe. So they are not refugees. So they will have to - if they want to go elsewhere - take their place in the queue with everyone else. Not seek to make some prior claim based on a status they no longer have.
Other countries in the Middle East are not full and not at bursting point.
And if Tunisia is not safe because of 2 attacks, then neither is France nor Britain nor Belgium nor Spain, all of whom have faced far more vicious attacks than those in Tunisia.
Tunisia is perfectly safe for Muslims, which is what most of these people are.
They are refugees, since Hungary doesn't plan on allowing them to stay. If Hungary were, then we'd be having a different conversation.
Other Middle Eastern countries may not be full but they have taken in many refugees - Turkey has taken in 1.7m refugees. With the crisis escalating, I doubt that they can take in all refugees.
And the difference between Tunisia and France, Britain is that it is far more vulnerable to ISIS coming in than a country with a channel separating from the rest of Europe.
No - they are not refugees once they reach Hungary. They are not at risk of persecution or death in Hungary.
And Britain is at risk from IS precisely because of the Muslim communities here, which provide a route in. So it's bloody silly to increase those communities with people from the very same country where that extremist group is located.
Muslims are safe in Tunisia. It is not Muslims who were targeted by the two atrocities. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Syrian Muslims would not be safe there.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe. I don't agree. I think these Syrian refugees want nothing more than a safe place to live, and will contribute to the countries that accept them. There's a difference between the mass immigration of economic migrants, and the immigration of genuine refugees.
Just as mass immigration from Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria, the North West Frontier, the Arabian Peninsula etc. has turned out well for European host nations. After all, they wanted nothing more than a safe place to live.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum cases.
I think for many even taking 1 in would be enough. It would be a life saved.
What naive, idiotic tosh, So all Cameron has to say is "okay, we'll take 1" and everyone is happy. Foolish girl.
PB Tory having a meltdown because someone doesn't agree with him. Oh dear.
The migrants are safe once they arrive in Hungary or Greece. They don't need to come to the UK, Germany or Sweden to be protected from war.
They are safe in those countries, however they can't take all the migrants. That's why the proposal is that not all migrants go to the UK, Germany or Sweden, but that EU countries take a share. And as far as I'm aware Hungary doesn't want these migrants.
Why should they just be shared out between EU countries? What about Middle Eastern countries, such as the ones far wealthier than us?
I agree that they should also be shared out with rich Middle Eastern countries as well.
But that is not what is been talked about,especially from the media or leftwing loons who think Britain should take in the world.
Some on here think the solution will be solved if Britain takes in thousands more,misguided fools.
I think Britain should try its best to help solve the crisis, not take in the whole. That's impossible.
Out of interest, is it the theory or the stragegy of the following that you disagree with:
Theory: if not one more migrant came to Europe tomorrow, we could solve this quite easily and relatively quickly.
Strategy: stop migrants entering Europe, and particularly from passage via the Med.
Both. They're unrealistic desires.
And just to be clear, do you disagree with them philsopically, rather than saying they won't prevent a migrant crisis. Would you actively prefer the migrants to come here (Europe)?
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
I don't agree. I think these Syrian refugees want nothing more than a safe place to live, and will contribute to the countries that accept them. There's a difference between the mass immigration of economic migrants, and the immigration of genuine refugees.
Genuine refugees want to be safe. Will they be safer in Germany than anywhere else in the EU. No? So why do they chant "Germany, Germany" in English outside the Budapest railway station. You're a straw in the wind.
Because Hungary doesn't want them, and Germany is the one welcoming them the most. That's why.
Well then Germany can keep them.
Germany can't house them all, that's the whole point.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum seekers already here.
Numbers are meaningless here. It's all about posturing for political effect, by Merkel in particular. Merkel has invited in 800,000 and each immigrant reckons well there are 799,999 places left after me. As I said in a previous post, we have to find a way of pressing the pause button to give everyone time to think. Decisions made now, without thought, will have huge consequences. Thankfully Miss A is very low on her learning curve but doesn't seem to be learning much.
Usually when you resort to being patronising and rude, you've lost the argument.
So that some woolly thinkers get the message, I think it's worth pointing out that you left out the bit about us in particular being a soft touch, never getting to grips with illegals and having a nice cosy support system for everyone, entitled or not.
Botswana for example is safe and prosperous for an African country and also has a very low population density. They could offer to take in refugees.
Let's not mention the fact that issues of racism between black Africans and Arabs might come into play if a country like Botswana took in Syrian refugees. Because racism is a concept which is only valid with regard to white people.
How often does one see a black/Asian couple on the streets of London? Hardly ever. Another point which mustn't be talked about.
No - they are not refugees once they reach Hungary. They are not at risk of persecution or death in Hungary.
And Britain is at risk from IS precisely because of the Muslim communities here, which provide a route in. So it's bloody silly to increase those communities with people from the very same country where that extremist group is located.
Muslims are safe in Tunisia. It is not Muslims who were targeted by the two atrocities. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Syrian Muslims would not be safe there.
They are, since as I said before Hungary isn't planning on giving them a place to stay. Therefore they are at risk of going back to Syria. And Britain is at risk from IS because of it's meddling in the Middle East. Muslims may not have been targeted by the atrocities in that case, but IS will attack anyone who they see fit, Muslim or not.
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's w::::
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
I don't agree. I think these Syrian refugees want nothing more than a safe place to live, and will contribute to the countries that accept them. There's a difference between the mass immigration of economic migrants, and the immigration of genuine refugees.
Genuine refugees want to be safe. Will they be safer in Germany than anywhere else in the EU. No? So why do they chant "Germany, Germany" in English outside the Budapest railway station. You're a straw in the wind.
Because Hungary doesn't want them, and Germany is the one welcoming them the most. That's why.
Well then Germany can keep them.
Germany can't house them all, that's the whole point.
In which case Merkel shouldn't have invited them...
Immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum. Someone hears that they're welcome somewhere, likely to get higher benefits in x vs y, then they risk death to get to x. In my view not actively discouraging immigration to Western Europe causes more direct harm than it does good.
The migrants are safe once they arrive in Hungary or Greece. They don't need to come to the UK, Germany or Sweden to be protected from war.
They are safe in those countries, however they can't take all the migrants. That's why the proposal is that not all migrants go to the UK, Germany or Sweden, but that EU countries take a share. And as far as I'm aware Hungary doesn't want these migrants.
Why should they just be shared out between EU countries? What about Middle Eastern countries, such as the ones far wealthier than us?
I agree that they should also be shared out with rich Middle Eastern countries as well.
But that is not what is been talked about,especially from the media or leftwing loons who think Britain should take in the world.
Some on here think the solution will be solved if Britain takes in thousands more,misguided fools.
I think Britain should try its best to help solve the crisis, not take in the whole. That's impossible.
Out of interest, is it the theory or the stragegy of the following that you disagree with:
Theory: if not one more migrant came to Europe tomorrow, we could solve this quite easily and relatively quickly.
Strategy: stop migrants entering Europe, and particularly from passage via the Med.
Both. They're unrealistic desires.
And just to be clear, do you disagree with them philsopically, rather than saying they won't prevent a migrant crisis. Would you actively prefer the migrants to come here (Europe)?
Migrants should go anywhere they are safe. I don't actively have a preference for them to come to Europe.
I was under the impression that the problems in Afghanistan had something to do with an unprovoked attack on the WTC. B
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
But mass immigration from these places? Are we taking in a third of Eitrea, or something. And well...we did invade Afghanistan....
I'm talking of Western Europe generally. Immigration from Somalia, the NWF, Sudan, Afghanistan to the UK is substantial. France is obviously the destination for Algerians.
Doesn't France have colonial history regarding Algeria? It shouldn't be surprised when Algerians turn up on their door-step. Likewise with Afghanistan, if we didn't want Afghans coming here then we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan.
This is one of the favourite arguments of the left and it doesn't make any sense to me at all.
If Algerians fought so hard to be independent from France, why do so many of them want to return themselves to French rule by moving to France? Makes a mockery of the concept of independence from colonialism.
Probably because France offers better life-opportunities than living in Algeria, before and after France rule, that's why.
And France now has a huge problem in its banlieues of disaffected Muslim youths, despite the better life France offers.
It was foolish of France to permit Arab migration into France on the scale that it did. We should not repeat the mistake. There is no reason to suppose it will end with any better outcome than in France
France shouldn't have gone and colonised countries such as Algeria, if it didn't want Arab immigration. And France's problem is not one-sided, either. There are many countries in Europe with disaffected Muslisms, but they don't vote for the likes of Marine Le Pen. France has an issue in general with immigration, even those from non-Muslim backgrounds.
You can't have it both ways. If Algerian independence was a good thing for Algerians, almost all Algerians would have stayed in Algeria. By migrating to France they're showing that independence hasn't worked out the way it was supposed to and that the French way of doing things is better. That's why they move to France, by definition. What you seem to be saying is that Algerian independence is a positive thing and large numbers of Algerians moving to France is a positive thing. Those two things being so at the same time doesn't make sense. They can't both be true.
The migrants are safe once they arrive in Hungary or Greece. They don't need to come to the UK, Germany or Sweden to be protected from war.
They are safe in those countries, however they can't take all the migrants. That's why the proposal is that not all migrants go to the UK, Germany or Sweden, but that EU countries take a share. And as far as I'm aware Hungary doesn't want these migrants.
Why should they just be shared out between EU countries? What about Middle Eastern countries, such as the ones far wealthier than us?
I agree that they should also be shared out with rich Middle Eastern countries as well.
But that is not what is been talked about,especially from the media or leftwing loons who think Britain should take in the world.
Some on here think the solution will be solved if Britain takes in thousands more,misguided fools.
I think Britain should try its best to help solve the crisis, not take in the whole. That's impossible.
Out of interest, is it the theory or the stragegy of the following that you disagree with:
Theory: if not one more migrant came to Europe tomorrow, we could solve this quite easily and relatively quickly.
Strategy: stop migrants entering Europe, and particularly from passage via the Med.
Both. They're unrealistic desires.
And just to be clear, do you disagree with them philsopically, rather than saying they won't prevent a migrant crisis. Would you actively prefer the migrants to come here (Europe)?
Migrants should go anywhere they are safe. I don't actively have a preference for them to come to Europe.
But Merkel's foolish comments may actually endanger lives. They could be safe in places far nearer Syria. Why is it right to say they should come here, and wrong to say that we should solve this issue closer to home.
In which case Merkel shouldn't have invited them...
Immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum. Someone hears that they're welcome somewhere, likely to get higher benefits in x vs y, then they risk death to get to x. In my view not actively discouraging immigration to Western Europe causes more direct harm than it does good.
Merkel invited the ones she house to Germany.
You're right immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum. The West have a done a lot to help cause this crisis, and exacerbate the problems in the Middle East as a whole.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum seekers already here.
Numbers are meaningless here. It's all about posturing for political effect, by Merkel in particular. Merkel has invited in 800,000 and each immigrant reckons well there are 799,999 places left after me. As I said in a previous post, we have to find a way of pressing the pause button to give everyone time to think. Decisions made now, without thought, will have huge consequences. Thankfully Miss A is very low on her learning curve but doesn't seem to be learning much.
Usually when you resort to being patronising and rude, you've lost the argument.
I think you deliberately misinterpret honest criticism to save your blushes. You'll have to toughen up if you want a career in politics.
Some very interesting Russian metal and a surprising number of men in Breton style t-shirts are turning up in Syria.
Curiously the US is reportedly standing down Patriot anti aircraft & anti missile batteries based in Jordan and pointing at Syria. Wouldn't want to hit anything by accident I suppose.
Hi, Yokel. What is the implication of the Breton-style Ts? Spetsnaz?
The problem with the Breton is its become a bit of a wholesale wear; Spetsnatz, Airborne, marine infantry and or maybe just some blokes who are on the ground advisors. Question is, why now from the Russians. Whilst they have shipped kit to Assad before we are talking a handful of high performance aircraft and choppers, real force multiplier kit. What I'm not sure of is who is flying it.
Its the sudden appearance of what also appear to be reasonable numbers of actual shirts thats even more curious. Is it a trip wire function to deter other 3rd parties going too deep into Syria by air or ground, is it simply a bolster to Assads' own forces and its just a larger than expected number of technicians and brains to help out or do the Russians intend to use their own bodies in fighting.
These chappies do not appear to be PMCs
Many thanks, as ever. My inner optimist is hoping the Russians realise Assad is intractably obdurate, already have "their man" in place, and this extra protection for Assad is simply the prelude to some repeat of Storm 333. But that is far too much to hope for. I suppose of more interest is who Russia would be prepared to use this kit against: I know there are Caucasus militants who have thrown their lot in with IS, so no surprises if they and their comrades are in the cross-hairs. But there are plenty of other groups who threaten Assad while having no particular beef against Russia, other than regarding Russia's role in Syria. As far as I can see, taking on such groups would tend to enhance the primacy of IS among the rebels. How much help would Russia be prepared to give in these circumstances?
And did Merkel engage with other EU leaders, including Cameron, before making her recent decision? Because if she didn't it's a bit much to criticise Cameron for the same thing.
Britain is contributing, is doing rather more than other EU states - as others have pointed out. The criticism is that she is not doing exactly what the others want. Well the Germans are not doing what we want either. No EU state has the moral high ground here - and policy driven by sentimentality, emotional blackmail and newspaper headlines is usually bad policy.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum seekers already here.
Numbers are meaningless here. It's all about posturing for political effect, by Merkel in particular. Merkel has invited in 800,000 and each immigrant reckons well there are 799,999 places left after me. As I said in a previous post, we have to find a way of pressing the pause button to give everyone time to think. Decisions made now, without thought, will have huge consequences. Thankfully Miss A is very low on her learning curve but doesn't seem to be learning much.
Usually when you resort to being patronising and rude, you've lost the argument.
You'll have to toughen up if you want a career in politics
You can't have it both ways. If Algerian independence was a good thing for Algerians, almost all Algerians would have stayed in Algeria. By migrating to France they're showing that independence hasn't worked out the way it was supposed to and that the French way of doing things is better. That's why they move to France, by definition. What you seem to be saying is that Algerian independence is a positive thing and large numbers of Algerians moving to France is a positive thing. Those two things being so at the same time doesn't make sense. They can't both be true.
It's not having it both ways. France, and other countries had no business going into countries and colonising them in the first place. Personally, I don't think many of these countries gaining independence has ended up being positive - but a lot of them is down to those who colonised these countries in the first place.
Comments
We had the Rochdale MP complaining about to many asylum seekers been sent to his constituency this week.
Quite a lot of immigration from the places I mention, and with undesirable outcomes for host nations.
The purpose of the asylum process is to protect people who are at risk of genocide or equivalents. Not anyone in a warzone. During the Second World War, we took the Jews in as refugees, not anyone from central Europe.
If you want a honest debate, preventing the UK government from expressing an opinion isn't the way to go about it.
Anyhoo, on a related point, I owe you a partial apology. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, chapter 41, Part VII, Chapter III, section 125, "Restriction on publication etc. of promotional material by central and local government etc." does specifically prevent the government of the day from making certain interventions with respect to a referendum. It's not all-encompassing and section 125(3) enables you to drive a coach and horses thru it, if you ask me - press notices! fer Chrissake - but the intent is clear. The bit I quoted last night should have mentioned that and didn't, so apols.
Incidentally, why diss the use of SPADS? They're not civil service, not officers of the Crown, so they're not covered (unless things have changed). They bl**dy should be civil service IMHO, but as they're not, they're not covered by the regs.
And if some of those Western European countries want to invite some in, good for them. But they should not then expect others to follow suit. Or berate them if they choose not to.
The WTC attack was perpetrated by 23 Saudi nationals working for an organisation run by a Saudi national, funded by money from Saudi Arabia and mainly trained in Sudan and Yemen and when located and killed or captured most of the organisations members have been found in Pakistan and Yemen.
Warzone, genocide.....the point I'm trying to get across is that many of these people are fleeing for their lives. And my point still stands that being on the long-list of a housing queue is nothing compared to living in a warzone. And apparently for many years we denied the Jews access to this country.
Some very interesting Russian metal and a surprising number of men in Breton style t-shirts are turning up in Syria.
Curiously the US is reportedly standing down Patriot anti aircraft & anti missile batteries based in Jordan and pointing at Syria. Wouldn't want to hit anything by accident I suppose.
If we were really desperate to save a life, we would be better to accept people for urgent medical treatment that their own country is unable to provide... regardless of whether the country they are coming from is stable or unstable, fair or persecutory. Of course, there are ill and infirm refugees fleeing from complete hell-holes, or who would flee if they had the ability to, but they are the very last people the current "free-for-all" European asylum "system" actually helps. And if we were utterly utilitarian, and wanted to save the maximal amount of lives possible within the confines of a limited budget, we would send pretty much all refugees away to camps back in their home region but away from immediate danger, and pour serious funds into making them safe and secure there. A million pounds can save more lives in a country where GDP per capita is $2000 than where it is $40,000.
(For what it's worth I'd prefer a more liberal approach to immigration, but what is going on in Europe right now is a systemic failure that is KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE in horrific circumstances in stifling, suffocating backs of lorries and in choking, gasping despair in the Med. For people fleeing Eritrea or West Africa, the current asylum set-up is probably producing, on net, more deaths than it is lives saved. There's a strong argument that encouraging more migration without radically shaking up the system to discourage dangerous transit is simply going to add to the death toll. Tidy allocations of so-many-thousand refugees per European country don't solve the issue - not only because it seems unlikely people will stay in Poland when friends and opportunities are in better supply in Germany nextdoor, say, but because it only produces an illusion of control. Most of the fatal chaos is in the journey to Europe in the first place.)
And if those other European countries happened to get involved in Middle East affairs, then they are within reason to expect them to follow suit.
They may prefer Britain to Turkey or Lebanon or Hungary. But a preference does not make you a refugee. And it is up to Britain to decide whether or not it wants to invite any of these people in. British governments should, when making such decisions, think of British people first.
And if you're going to invite people in - what are we going to do with them? Handwaving the issue away doesn't make it so.
We already have thousands in B&Bs. I can't help feeling you aren't applying your critical faculties here. It's really easy to spend money we don't have and give homes to the latest fashionable cause. What about the next lot and the next and the next?
Where I live it's about 11yrs to get a council home now.
Obviously, if we had got involved in Syria, it would be all our fault also.
People need to stop confusing the propaganda with what actually happened. I supposed you believe he really was hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. Yet despite being subject to the biggest manhunt in history was actually killed in a rather spacious private residence in Pakistan
I don't consider the biggest crisis to hit Europe since WW2 the latest fashion cause.
Other countries in the Middle East are not full and not at bursting point.
And if Tunisia is not safe because of 2 attacks, then neither is France nor Britain nor Belgium nor Spain, all of whom have faced far more vicious attacks than those in Tunisia.
Tunisia is perfectly safe for Muslims, which is what most of these people are.
I don't know how you can improve on a post such as that - maybe gratuitously throw in an engineering video as well?
Other Middle Eastern countries may not be full but they have taken in many refugees - Turkey has taken in 1.7m refugees. With the crisis escalating, I doubt that they can take in all refugees.
And the difference between Tunisia and France, Britain is that it is far more vulnerable to ISIS coming in than a country with a channel separating from the rest of Europe.
In fact even during the height of WW2, when Jewish refugees were fleeing in unseaworthy boats - even 19th century sailing ships - from the shores of Europe, across the Med to Mandatory Palestine, we still imposed a tight quota on Jewish migration (an attempt to dampen ethnic tension after the Arab Revolt).
Some on here think the solution will be solved if Britain takes in thousands more,misguided fools.
If Algerians fought so hard to be independent from France, why do so many of them want to return themselves to French rule by moving to France? Makes a mockery of the concept of independence from colonialism.
Also that argument is a form of "two wrongs make a right" which I assume you don't believe with regard to other issues such as capital punishment.
Edit: actuslly, the point is we don't yet have a european migrant crisis. We might if Merkel's harebrained policy takes hold.
https://twitter.com/chrisg0000/status/639132909706838016
Its the sudden appearance of what also appear to be reasonable numbers of actual shirts thats even more curious. Is it a trip wire function to deter other 3rd parties going too deep into Syria by air or ground, is it simply a bolster to Assads' own forces and its just a larger than expected number of technicians and brains to help out or do the Russians intend to use their own bodies in fighting.
These chappies do not appear to be PMCs
I actually thought my earlier analogy about the toy in the road was better. I'm the sort of spoilsport who will, if I see a balloon or ball or toy in the middle of a busy street, cross over and retrieve or perhaps even destroy it, because I don't want to read in the local paper the next day that some kid has dashed across the road to pick it up and got run over. If somebody deliberately puts toys in the middle of a road, then brags about how much their generous donation to local children shows they love kids, they are not about to get a card from me saying how much I love her for it. Somebody who goes to local children's homes, finding the most vulnerable and unloved and out-of-luck kids, then gives them a gift... that kind of targeting I can admire.
Theory: if not one more migrant came to Europe tomorrow, we could solve this quite easily and relatively quickly.
Strategy: stop migrants entering Europe, and particularly from passage via the Med.
It was foolish of France to permit Arab migration into France on the scale that it did. We should not repeat the mistake. There is no reason to suppose it will end with any better outcome than in France
Let's not mention the fact that issues of racism between black Africans and Arabs might come into play if a country like Botswana took in Syrian refugees. Because racism is a concept which is only valid with regard to white people.
How often does one see a black/Asian couple on the streets of London? Hardly ever. Another point which mustn't be talked about.
And Britain is at risk from IS precisely because of the Muslim communities here, which provide a route in. So it's bloody silly to increase those communities with people from the very same country where that extremist group is located.
Muslims are safe in Tunisia. It is not Muslims who were targeted by the two atrocities. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Syrian Muslims would not be safe there.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
But Merkel is providing a solution that would be harmful to the people of Europe, if provided across the board. Mass migration from failed states has not been a happy experience for Europe.
I don't agree. I think these Syrian refugees want nothing more than a safe place to live, and will contribute to the countries that accept them. There's a difference between the mass immigration of economic migrants, and the immigration of genuine refugees.
Just as mass immigration from Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria, the North West Frontier, the Arabian Peninsula etc. has turned out well for European host nations. After all, they wanted nothing more than a safe place to live.
Immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum. Someone hears that they're welcome somewhere, likely to get higher benefits in x vs y, then they risk death to get to x. In my view not actively discouraging immigration to Western Europe causes more direct harm than it does good.
You're right immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum. The West have a done a lot to help cause this crisis, and exacerbate the problems in the Middle East as a whole.
Merkel is providing a solution. Cameron isn't - that's why I've called on him to engage with other EU leaders. Britain has offered aid, but that clearly isn't enough to deal with this crisis - and Germany's offer to allow many of these refugees to stay, now trumps Britain's 'contribution' because it actually involves saving lives. The criticism is that Cameron is doing nothing. Unless PB believes a policy of merely giving aid that doesn't deal with the growing crisis is enough. I don't.
And much of the government's policy, particularly its stance on welfare is informed by newspaper headlines. They are afterall, supposed to represent the WVM - the only group which matters.
@kle4 That's for Cameron to decide, he's the PM after all. Although I think a sensible compromise would be one which looks to help stablise the Middle East.
@Sean_F And as I've said before, clearly that is not enough to deal with this crisis. This crisis has gone beyond that now, and is getting worse and worse.
@Tykejohnno That's up for the UK government to decide.
If we took ten thousand,it would be never enough for some,we then would have a immigration crisis on our border with more people seeing Britain taking thousands in.
What would also letting in a certain number do the mass immigration of Europe,nothing,it would be a pin prick but it would cause problems here with councils already struggling with our asylum seekers already here.
Numbers are meaningless here. It's all about posturing for political effect, by Merkel in particular. Merkel has invited in 800,000 and each immigrant reckons well there are 799,999 places left after me. As I said in a previous post, we have to find a way of pressing the pause button to give everyone time to think. Decisions made now, without thought, will have huge consequences. Thankfully Miss A is very low on her learning curve but doesn't seem to be learning much.
Usually when you resort to being patronising and rude, you've lost the argument.
I think you deliberately misinterpret honest criticism to save your blushes. You'll have to toughen up if you want a career in politics.