politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The way’s clear for Carly Fiorina to take on Trump directly

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Cyclefree said:

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.

isam said:

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

DanSmith said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RodCrosby said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Very interesting

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.

http://bit.ly/1KJdvgc

Are they counting the votes as they come in?

Sounds like psyops to me.

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.

Pauly said:

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...

MikeL said:

Plato said:

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.

JEO said:

Dearie me. It looks like Cameron has not brought back purdah properly at all:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/government-could-still-face-defeat-on-eu-purdah-row/

He still wants taxpayer paid SPADs working on the campaign. It's infuriating that he is dragging his feet over having an honest debate on this.

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

So you can pick which current UK citizen will be displaced from the housing queue. That's the harsh reality of the situation.

The_Apocalypse said:

Tykejohnno said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Cyclefree said:

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.

NickPalmer said:

...
regionalist (e.g. the SNP)
...

Cyclefree said:

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.

MyBurningEars said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.
....

Y0kel said:

Syria:

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.

MyBurningEars said:

The_Apocalypse said:

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.)

Dair said:

Sean_F said:

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.

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

Plato said:

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Dair said:

NickPalmer said:

...
regionalist (e.g. the SNP)
...

I'm surprised someone in public life would openly use such inflammatory, xenophobic, supremacist language.

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

Plato said:

I think you need evidence for that assertion.

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.

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

AndyJS said:

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?

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

They shouldn't have attacked an ally.

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Cyclefree said:

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.

The_Apocalypse said:

Mortimer said:

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.

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

Plato said:

I think you need evidence for that assertion.

...

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

Cyclefree said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

Plato said:

Until the next one. I'm very cynical here - we've had oodles of them over the decades I've lived so far.

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

I think you need evidence for that assertion.

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.

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abandonment_of_the_Jews

I don't consider the biggest crisis to hit Europe since WW2 the latest fashion cause.

AndyJS said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

Tykejohnno said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

AndyJS said:

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.

The_Apocalypse said:

Cyclefree said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

Cyclefree said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Cyclefree said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

Disraeli said:

Mortimer said:

MyBurningEars said:

*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?

The_Apocalypse said:

AndyJS said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

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.

The_Apocalypse said:

Tykejohnno said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Cyclefree said:

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.

Dair said:

NickPalmer said:

...
regionalist (e.g. the SNP)
...

I'm surprised someone in public life would openly use such inflammatory, xenophobic, supremacist language.

The_Apocalypse said:

Cyclefree said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Cyclefree said:

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.

ReggieCide said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Tykejohnno said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Cyclefree said:

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.

Cyclefree said:

The_Apocalypse said:

ReggieCide said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Cyclefree said:

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.

Cyclefree said:

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.

Mortimer said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Mortimer said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Tykejohnno said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

AndyJS said:

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)?

The_Apocalypse said:

Mortimer said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Mortimer said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Tykejohnno said:

The_Apocalypse said:

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

AndyJS said:

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.

The_Apocalypse said:

ReggieCide said:

Tykejohnno said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Cyclefree said:

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.