It's because I'm usually on the right, which leads to people thinking I'm Conservative (and I did vote for them last time, heroically slaying Balls). But I've voted for four other parties in the past, and imagine I'll vote for others in the near future too.
If Cameron wanted us to accept 120,000 or 240,000 (Cooper's monthly total over a year, or the Green position) I'd oppose it.
It's also fundamentally different to take people from camps adjacent to the conflict and just waving through illegal migration.
People compete with the numbers of refugees they'd be willing to take in as a thermometer of how unequivocally anti-racist they are. Actually, it's all about them.
Of course, that ends with most on the Left declaring "no limit", which leaves them nowhere to go in any sensible discussion on the matter.
A white skin - and indeed being Anglophone, whatever one's skin colour - are unmerited privileges. There is no healthy emotional reaction to either.
Errant nonsense. But you do sum up a common view on the Left with that post.
Ms. Apocalypse, you really don't think "No upper limit, we'll take everyone" is going to encourage more dangerous journeys and people smuggling?
Being aware of Schengen isn't a sign of being calculated/cunning, just being vaguely intelligent.
The West is masochistic over intervention. When we intervene a lot (Iraq), it's our fault. When we intervene a little (Libya) it's our fault. When we do nothing (Syria), it's our fault.
Let's break this down. Firstly, what problem(s) are we trying to solve?
Firstly, the problem of the refugees in Europe, and where to settle them. Secondly, the potential problem of further refugees coming to Europe. Thirdly, the problem of refugees in camps in Lebanon, Jordan etc, and helping them get out of those camps at some point so they can lead a normal life. Fourthly, the internal Civil War in Syria which has led to this crisis - in the long-term we need to decide how to make Syria as habitable, and safe as possible if we want to quell further migration.
Thanks. So that is
1) the problem of the refugees in Europe, and where to settle them.
2) the potential problem of further refugees coming to Europe.
3) the problem of refugees in camps in Lebanon, Jordan etc, and helping them get out of those camps at some point so they can lead a normal life.
4) the internal Civil War in Syria which has led to this crisis - in the long-term we need to decide how to make Syria as habitable, and safe as possible if we want to quell further migration.
That's a good start. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are supporting allowing many migrants in with minimal checks (and such checks are difficult with people already on the move). So what are possible downsides of this on the problems you mention:
1) We settle the current migrants, but that only encourages more, and there is more suffering and the people traffickers get richer.
2) It will encourage more migrants to come. Result as per 1) above. Worse, economic migrants feel emboldened.
3) It does nothing for the camps, except for possibly reducing the numbers slightly, at a cost of spreading the misery and making it harder to help the people suffering.
4) It does nothing for the internal civil war.
As an aside, there is another potential but remote consequence: that other barbaric regimes might use it as an excuse for ethnic cleansing: "we don't want them, but we can't kill them. But Europe will take them."
I cannot see how it does any good, except salving a few consciences.
Miss Plato, it'll be interesting to see the long term impact of the Merkellian quagmire on the EU's internal politics. And if we'll get compulsory quotas.
@Alanbrooke Given that most of the debate prior to Thursday centred on whether or not we should even accept refugees, and whether we had an obligation to get involved the scale of refugees is neither here nor there. The government, one that does not want to accept many refugees will decide how many we accept.
@Morris_Dancer For reasons I've explained in previous threads, I don't see Merkel pouring petrol over the fire. I don't believe that anything she could have said or done, would have stopped those making the journey to Europe. Really, only stabilising Syria can do that for sure. Does your average Syrian migrant really know what Schengen is? This plays into the idea these refugees are these calculating, cunning people. I suppose you agree with the assessment that Schengen caused the crisis, but then I disagree: I would attribute some of the blame to Western involvement in the Middle East, and how that has de-stabilised the region even further than it was before, paving the way for this crisis.
Now youre going in circles.
We had already accepted Syrian refugees before this week so the principle of taking them in was established
This week has been about the scale of influx and how they can be accommodated, it's a numbers game.
The UK has said it will take more in but from source in the camps not from Europe
Germany has to tidy its own mess up and stop griping.
The government needs to be loud and proud about the work it has been doing .
I don't see why the UK should be forced to pick up the pieces of the EU's (and particularly German) stupidity.
The best thing to do would be to formalise the refugee camps adjacent to Syria, improve their sanitation and facilities, build a jetty and a dock, and land all those rescued in future by Operation Triton back there.
Perhaps that is part of the future solution although the countries collapsing under the weight of their refugee problem may have a different view. Jordan already has a quarter of its population in refugees. What are they going to say when we want to forcibly off load people back onto them? But even if that were possible it does not solve the problem of the people already in the EU.
I think Jordan and Turkey would be pleased with Western help with its refugees, particularly to place its refuges "in order" - and I'm sure an arrangement could be reached.
I don't understand this psychology about not wanting to engage with middle-eastern countries for fear of upsetting them, but bending over backwards in the EU ourselves to all and sundry.
Germany and Sweden have declared their policy and made their bed. They must now lie in it. If I were them I would review each and every case and deport those who are not genuine Syrian refugees (which is at least half of them) back to MENA.
If we had 15m genuine refugees in the UK how interested do you think we would be in help if we would only take a few more? Your solution is based on a fantasy. But in the real world people are here in the EU and cannot be returned. What do we do? We help. There is no alternative.
@apocalypse You really are being quite silly peddling that line. The difference in tone and substance is enormous - and Labour is back on the old line of 'let everyone in' days before electing a peacenik throwback from the 50s/60s as leader. If you are unable to spot the problem with this then so be it.
I don't think Yvette Cooper, for example has ever said we should let 'everyone' in - she has suggested a quota of 10,000 IIRC (she said it could happen in one month, I don't know if she literally means we should take that number per month). That's most likely more than Cameron is willingly to consider, but it's still not letting in everyone.
Ms. Apocalypse:
Let's break this down. Firstly, what problem(s) are we trying to solve?
Firstly, the problem of the refugees in Europe, and where to settle them. Secondly, the potential problem of further refugees coming to Europe. Thirdly, the problem of refugees in camps in Lebanon, Jordan etc, and helping them get out of those camps at some point so they can lead a normal life. Fourthly, the internal Civil War in Syria which has led to this crisis - in the long-term we need to decide how to make Syria as habitable, and safe as possible if we want to quell further migration.
OK Ms Apocalypse, You've stated the problem/s; what is/are your solution/s? Solutions that won't make the populations of various European countries rise in revolt.
I thought you believed I wasn't real?
Firstly, on the refugees in Europe I'd look to how many are here, and how many are projected to come. An EU border control and security would be set-up to vet those coming, and after that - those who were Syrian refugees would be automatically granted asylum. For the European countries willingly, quotas would be set-up depending on their capacity to accept refugees.
I think European leaders should then work towards the futures of those in camps - ensuring that education, health-care and good conditions for the refugees in the Middle East in the short-term. In the longer term, Europe's leaders need to look at how these refugees can leave camps, and go about their lives. I would look for the EU to engage with other Middle Eastern countries, and look at the possibility of housing those refugees in the Middle East, with refugee projects set-up to ensure that they could access housing, jobs, and education in their new countries as well as be integrated into society.
In the long, long term I think Europe's leaders need to bit the the bullet and back Assad as the lesser evil, and attempt from their to restore some stability to Syria.
Actually Chilcott it telling the families an uncomfortable truth. Families are trying to put pressure on Chilcott not the other way round
Quite rightly. He is being paid by the public purse and we expect him to deliver. He should come clean with how long the last person has taken to comment on the report and how much longer he expects to give them.
Indeed. There must be restrictions on that in future if there isn't already, his explanations have been incredibly weak and dismissive given the length of time involved. Pathetic.
The government needs to be loud and proud about the work it has been doing in the camps around Syria. Some ministerial visits may be in order. I suspect that the government is so used to taking grief about its overseas aid budget they have been hesitant to do that and it has proved a mistake as Britain's Diana tendencies have resurfaced.
If they do that they will be criticised for it - callous PM wanders around camp in attempt to get PR looking tough, that sort of thing.
Perhaps but they would at least get the chance to make the point that we need to cut off the source of immigration to the EU and, given there is no appetite for an invasion of Syria, making these camps as tolerable as possible is the best way to do it.
@Alanbrooke Given that most of the debate prior to Thursday centred on whether or not we should even accept refugees, and whether we had an obligation to get involved the scale of refugees is neither here nor there. The government, one that does not want to accept many refugees will decide how many we accept.
@Morris_Dancer For reasons I've explained in previous threads, I don't see Merkel pouring petrol over the fire. I don't believe that anything she could have said or done, would have stopped those making the journey to Europe. Really, only stabilising Syria can do that for sure. Does your average Syrian migrant really know what Schengen is? This plays into the idea these refugees are these calculating, cunning people. I suppose you agree with the assessment that Schengen caused the crisis, but then I disagree: I would attribute some of the blame to Western involvement in the Middle East, and how that has de-stabilised the region even further than it was before, paving the way for this crisis.
Now youre going in circles.
We had already accepted Syrian refugees before this week so the principle of taking them in was established
This week has been about the scale of influx and how they can be accommodated, it's a numbers game.
The UK has said it will take more in but from source in the camps not from Europe
Germany has to tidy its own mess up and stop griping.
I'm not going in circles. The principle of taking them in was put in doubt by Cameron's words earlier this week, which implied a reluctance to take in any more. Once balk at the idea of taking in refugees, the earlier principle no longer exists.
And this isn't Germany's mess. Indeed Germany knows that the level of refugees coming to Europe means one country will not be able to house them all.
It's because I'm usually on the right, which leads to people thinking I'm Conservative (and I did vote for them last time, heroically slaying Balls). But I've voted for four other parties in the past, and imagine I'll vote for others in the near future too.
If Cameron wanted us to accept 120,000 or 240,000 (Cooper's monthly total over a year, or the Green position) I'd oppose it.
It's also fundamentally different to take people from camps adjacent to the conflict and just waving through illegal migration.
People compete with the numbers of refugees they'd be willing to take in as a thermometer of how unequivocally anti-racist they are. Actually, it's all about them.
Of course, that ends with most on the Left declaring "no limit", which leaves them nowhere to go in any sensible discussion on the matter.
A white skin - and indeed being Anglophone, whatever one's skin colour - are unmerited privileges. There is no healthy emotional reaction to either.
Errant nonsense. But you do sum up a common view on the Left with that post.
Please explain. I put it to you that a healthy response to privilege always involves rationalization. Such rationalization may or may not be adequate - for example, there will be plenty of people over the week-end giving thanks to God that they're not Syrian or Libyan or whatever. Is that "errant nonsense" too?
Ms. Apocalypse, Germany saying there's no limit to the numbers it'll take and then insisting others take some of its migrants sounds precisely like a mess to me [not to mention it encourages criminal activity, enriching people smugglers and the risk of more people drowning].
It's because I'm usually on the right, which leads to people thinking I'm Conservative (and I did vote for them last time, heroically slaying Balls). But I've voted for four other parties in the past, and imagine I'll vote for others in the near future too.
If Cameron wanted us to accept 120,000 or 240,000 (Cooper's monthly total over a year, or the Green position) I'd oppose it.
It's also fundamentally different to take people from camps adjacent to the conflict and just waving through illegal migration.
People compete with the numbers of refugees they'd be willing to take in as a thermometer of how unequivocally anti-racist they are. Actually, it's all about them.
Of course, that ends with most on the Left declaring "no limit", which leaves them nowhere to go in any sensible discussion on the matter.
@JosiasJessop - you make a number of very good points about Assad, and these are all issues that would need addressing especially the question of protecting the Kurds (this is also of course an issue with Turkey).
However, at the moment the immediate crisis demands some unpalatable choices:
1) We need to deal urgently with the refugee situation. Therefore, we either sort matters out in Syria or we accept refugees. The likely consequences of doing the latter (the march of the far right across Europe - watch to see whether Golden Dawn do well in Greece as a possible harbinger) means we have to do the former.
2) To do so, we have the choice of working with Assad, or with Isis. We cannot work with Isis, therefore we must for the moment swallow our loathing and disgust and work with Assad. We could do it indirectly, possibly even via Iran, but that is (a) a cowardly solution and (b) would give Iran, not us, any possible leverage over Assad should Isis be defeated.
Those are of course both medium term solutions (at best) and solving the migrant crisis now is urgent. It sounds horribly cynical, but has anyone suggested payments to Greece for each migrant it takes, in terms of its debt to the ECB or the Bundesbank being written off? Because it occurs to me that that might go a long way to resolving two major crises at once.
The question of protecting the Kurds is paramount if we are unwise enough to support Assad. Yet protecting them might mean a Iraq-Syria Kurdish protectorate, which would threaten Turkey. Yet if we support Assad, and he attacks the Kurds (and I see little chance he will not), then we are directly complicit in those deaths.
But there is an issue you are forgetting: the Russians, and especially the Iranians, are already backing Assad, and have his ear, if not pulling his strings. They already have leverage; to beat that leverage, we would have to offer things which I'm not sure you'd agree with. He'd play the three sides off against each other.
Assad's as much a problem as IS. The only solution is a post-Assad Syria run by someone else in the regime.
It's a mess; backing Assad would only make it messier, both morally and practically.
And evidently, the post saying my first post was so excellent was also excellent.
Is someone mucking about with Vanilla in the background?
Or are you going slowly insane?
That bus left long ago.
But seriously, those three posts were all centred, without tags. Odd.
It would have been a horse and cart
Nah, that's far too late. I'm not sure the wheel had even been invented. In fact, I think we were still arguing about what colour the wheel should be...
@Alanbrooke Given that most of the debate prior to Thursday centred on whether or not we should even accept ree with the assessment that Schengen caused the crisis, but then I disagree: I would attribute some of the blame to Western involvement in the Middle East, and how that has de-stabilised the region even further than it was before, paving the way for this crisis.
Now youre going in circles.
We had already accepted Syrian refugees before this week so the principle of taking them in was established
This week has been about the scale of influx and how they can be accommodated, it's a numbers game.
The UK has said it will take more in but from source in the camps not from Europe
Germany has to tidy its own mess up and stop griping.
I'm not going in circles. The principle of taking them in was put in doubt by Cameron's words earlier this week, which implied a reluctance to take in any more. Once balk at the idea of taking in refugees, the earlier principle no longer exists.
And this isn't Germany's mess. Indeed Germany knows that the level of refugees coming to Europe means one country will not be able to house them all.
Putting your words in Cameron's mouth doesn't actually change the facts.
Let's break this down. Firstly, what problem(s) are we trying to solve?
Firstly, the problem of the refugees in Europe, and where to settle them. Secondly, the potential problem of further refugees coming to Europe. Thirdly, the problem of refugees in camps in Lebanon, Jordan etc, and helping them get out of those camps at some point so they can lead a normal life. Fourthly, the internal Civil War in Syria which has led to this crisis - in the long-term we need to decide how to make Syria as habitable, and safe as possible if we want to quell further migration.
Thanks. So that is
1) the problem of the refugees in Europe, and where to settle them.
2) the potential problem of further refugees coming to Europe.
3) the problem of refugees in camps in Lebanon, Jordan etc, and helping them get out of those camps at some point so they can lead a normal life.
4) the internal Civil War in Syria which has led to this crisis - in the long-term we need to decide how to make Syria as habitable, and safe as possible if we want to quell further migration.
That's a good start. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are supporting allowing many migrants in with minimal checks (and such checks are difficult with people already on the move). So what are possible downsides of this on the problems you mention:
1) We settle the current migrants, but that only encourages more, and there is more suffering and the people traffickers get richer.
2) It will encourage more migrants to come. Result as per 1) above. Worse, economic migrants feel emboldened.
3) It does nothing for the camps, except for possibly reducing the numbers slightly, at a cost of spreading the misery and making it harder to help the people suffering.
4) It does nothing for the internal civil war.
As an aside, there is another potential but remote consequence: that other barbaric regimes might use it as an excuse for ethnic cleansing: "we don't want them, but we can't kill them. But Europe will take them."
I cannot see how it does any good, except salving a few consciences.
I do not believe there should be minimal checks.
On (1. and (2. the trouble is, we are at the point where more are going to come anyway. As I said before, the only way to really stop them coming is to affect the situation in Syria. Economic migrants already feel emboldened, we just have to sort refugees from pure economic migrants.
I don't see why trying to get those out of camps, would make their lives harder. I think you may be mistaken that I think Merkel's policy is a solution to those in camps - I don't. I think that requires a separate policy. Likewise, with (4. which I believe again requires a different strategy that is more long-term. I elaborated a bit more to @MikeK.
Last week for labour leadership voting right? About bloody time. If recent weeks are an indication and Corbyn does indeed win handsomely, he should change the rules and slash the time in future, as clearly most of those weeks were a waste considering he looked unstoppable some while ago. Unless we're in for a shock of course.
Ms. Apocalypse, you really don't think "No upper limit, we'll take everyone" is going to encourage more dangerous journeys and people smuggling?
Being aware of Schengen isn't a sign of being calculated/cunning, just being vaguely intelligent.
The West is masochistic over intervention. When we intervene a lot (Iraq), it's our fault. When we intervene a little (Libya) it's our fault. When we do nothing (Syria), it's our fault.
Personally, I blame ISIS. But there we are.
I don't think it'll make much of a difference. They were going to come anyway.
On Schengen I doubt your average joe in the UK would know what Schengen is.
On the West, we just shouldn't have gone in. Arguably, invading Iraq indirectly led to ISIS.
@JosiasJessop - you make a number of very good points about Assad, and these are all issues that would need addressing especially the question of protecting the Kurds (this is also of course an issue with Turkey).
However, at the moment the immediate crisis demands some unpalatable choices:
1) We need to deal urgently with the refugee situation. Therefore, we either sort matters out in Syria or we accept refugees. The likely consequences of doing the latter (the march of the far right across Europe - watch to see whether Golden Dawn do well in Greece as a possible harbinger) means we have to do the former.
2) To do so, we have the choice of working with Assad, or with Isis. We cannot work with Isis, therefore we must for the moment swallow our loathing and disgust and work with Assad. We could do it indirectly, possibly even via Iran, but that is (a) a cowardly solution and (b) would give Iran, not us, any possible leverage over Assad should Isis be defeated.
Those are of course both medium term solutions (at best) and solving the migrant crisis now is urgent. It sounds horribly cynical, but has anyone suggested payments to Greece for each migrant it takes, in terms of its debt to the ECB or the Bundesbank being written off? Because it occurs to me that that might go a long way to resolving two major crises at once.
The question of protecting the Kurds is paramount if we are unwise enough to support Assad. Yet protecting them might mean a Iraq-Syria Kurdish protectorate, which would threaten Turkey. Yet if we support Assad, and he attacks the Kurds (and I see little chance he will not), then we are directly complicit in those deaths.
But there is an issue you are forgetting: the Russians, and especially the Iranians, are already backing Assad, and have his ear, if not pulling his strings. They already have leverage; to beat that leverage, we would have to offer things which I'm not sure you'd agree with. He'd play the three sides off against each other.
Assad's as much a problem as IS. The only solution is a post-Assad Syria run by someone else in the regime.
It's a mess; backing Assad would only make it messier, both morally and practically.
I don't see any need at all to back Assad (according to @Yokel he is getting all the kit he needs from Russia anyway). He may indirectly gain from a really concentrated attack on ISIL but that is a secondary consequence of the policy, not an objective.
Mr. L, not sure it's Britain's but the media's Diana tendency which has resurfaced.
As for the mass illegal migration, we opted out of free movement. We never wanted to be in Schengen. That is the responsibility and the decision most of the rest of the EU has made, and it is not our job to clear up that mess any more than the failure of the eurozone is our fault or responsibility.
On fairness: Germany has a projected decline of population of around 2-3% during a period (I think to 2080) for which out population is forecast to rise by 9%, and we already have annual net migration of 330,000. On top of that, we're spending far more than Germany on aid camps.
The idea we aren't doing our share is a lie. We're paying more than most of the EU, Cameron's policy is sensible, and Merkel's encourages criminal activity. The failure here is the stupidity of Schengen.
Merkel's policy is more than a mistake. It's a clarion call for anyone from North Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans or further afield who wants to live in the EU to come on over. I fear it'll prove a horrendous error of judgement.
Yes, Merkel's policy announcement is a mistake. Yes it means that more will die in boats and suffocate in lorries. Yes, I agree that when working out what our "fair" share is it would be right to point to the fact we took 330,000 last year (net) since these are not technically refugees anymore once they reach a safe country. But no, we can't simply opt out of our continent's problems whether we are in Schengen or not. Schengen is going to collapse under this, in many ways on the ground it already has, but that does not make the problem go away.
The practical problem is what does Europe do with the tens of thousands in camps in Greece, Italy, Hungary etc? We will end up helping and would do better to do so with some grace.
Schengen, EU , Euro it is not looking good for the superstate.
The problem with that is that every time the EU cocks up (and this is a doozie, even by their standards) the argument is made that this is because we are not united enough! We already see huge pressure for an EU immigration policy and aid system on the back of this mess.
One could argue if GB had been Isolationist regarding intervening in Europe, especially in 1914, and onwards, we would have been a stronger independent nation in every sense.
Ms. Apocalypse, Germany saying there's no limit to the numbers it'll take and then insisting others take some of its migrants sounds precisely like a mess to me [not to mention it encourages criminal activity, enriching people smugglers and the risk of more people drowning].
As far as I've read Germany put its quota at 800,000. I also don't see trying to create an EU-wide plan as a mess.
Ms. Apocalypse, then we must fundamentally disagree. I think Merkel's policy is a combination of stupid and dangerous. Over the coming years, we shall see if that's the case.
On Schengen: the average Briton isn't trying to emigrate. It's not a valid comparison.
On Iraq: perhaps. The Arab Spring played a role. Not intervening to topple Assad could also be considered a failure. Hindsight's always 20/20.
Edited extra bit: Ms. Apocalypse, as I understand it, Germany's expecting 800,000 this year and has no upper limit on the number it will accept.
Merkel isn't trying to create an EU plan. She's determined Germany's policy and is trying to use that to force the rest of the EU to take migrants her own country has allowed in. It's not solidarity she seeks but German dominance.
On (1. and (2. the trouble is, we are at the point where more are going to come anyway. As I said before, the only way to really stop them coming is to affect the situation in Syria. Economic migrants already feel emboldened, we just have to sort refugees from pure economic migrants.
I don't see why trying to get those out of camps, would make their lives harder. I think you may be mistaken that I think Merkel's policy is a solution to those in camps - I don't. I think that requires a separate policy. Likewise, with (4. which I believe again requires a different strategy that is more long-term. I elaborated a bit more to @MikeK.
On the checks: good. Now tell me how will you turn away people who do not have the information (for whatever reason) to pass those checks. What happens to them? They'll try to come in anyway, and there will be more drowned children.
It's obvious the nearer you get the migrants to source, before they've had a chance to travel too far and traffickers have got their greedy mitts on them, the easier verification is. Therefore verify them in the camps.
And the more we accept, the more will come. Despite the doom and gloom merchants in Labour, the UK is a good country to live (although imperfect), which is why so many people want to come here.
What is the upper limit you think the UK can take? (Apologies if you've mentioned this before).
Let's break this down. Firstly, what problem(s) are we trying to solve?
Firstly, the problem of the refugees in Europe, and where to settle them. Secondly, the potential problem of further refugees coming to Europe. Thirdly, the problem of refugees in camps in Lebanon, Jordan etc, and helping them get out of those camps at some point so they can lead a normal life. Fourthly, the internal Civil War in Syria which has led to this crisis - in the long-term we need to decide how to make Syria as habitable, and safe as possible if we want to quell further migration.
Thanks. So that is
1) the problem of the refugees in Europe, and where to settle them.
2) the potential problem of further refugees coming to Europe.
3) the problem of
That's a good start. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are supporting allowing many migrants in with minimal checks (and such checks are difficult with people already on the move). So what are possible downsides of this on the problems you mention:
As an aside, there is another potential but remote consequence: that other barbaric regimes might use it as an excuse for ethnic cleansing: "we don't want them, but we can't kill them. But Europe will take them."
I cannot see how it does any good, except salving a few consciences.
I do not believe there should be minimal checks.
On (1. and (2. the trouble is, we are at the point where more are going to come anyway. As I said before, the only way to really stop them coming is to affect the situation in Syria. Economic migrants already feel emboldened, we just have to sort refugees from pure economic migrants.
I don't see why trying to get those out of camps, would make their lives harder. I think you may be mistaken that I think Merkel's policy is a solution to those in camps - I don't. I think that requires a separate policy. Likewise, with (4. which I believe again requires a different strategy that is more long-term. I elaborated a bit more to @MikeK.
Deporting those that fail to meet any criteria for asylum is not something to pass over lightly. Even amongst the Syrians there will be some Islamists who have fallen out with IS and also any number of Assads gassers and barrel bombers. How can we realistically identify them? And having done so where do we deport them to?
Admitting some (particularly Christians and Yazidis) direct from the camps is something I support, but Kurds who have been in Turkey for years ? Not so keen.
As often with David's Saturday pieces, for which, as always, many thanks, I'm far from being in agreement.
I do agree we need to resolve the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to resolve Libya and Yemen and that can't be done by the EU or even the West acting in isolation. Regional problems require global solutions (or something like that).
Were I David Cameron, I would be proposing an international conference, sponsored by the UN, to resolve the political, economic and humanitarian aspects of the Syrian crisis and everyone would be invited (yes, everyone, including IS because you talk to the power, not to the people).
The Security Council members of the UN should take the line that there will be a solution and a political agreement for a post-Assad Syria and once that has been achieved, the world will do everything to a) rebuild and b) repatriate. Ultimately, the aim must be for Syrians to return to a peaceful Syria (and I suspect that's what most Syrians want as well).
There's no point however simply having another talking shop - the velvet glove has to have an iron fist and that means a UN resolution authorising force to stop the fighting if need be and that should involve ALL UN Security Council members including Russia and China. I'd have no problem with Chinese, Indian, Brazilian or whoever troops enforcing a UN-brokered ceasefire on the streets of Damascus and perhaps we can persuade the Gulf States to a) help fund the UN effort and b) help fund the refugee repatriation.
I've long thought IS (and groups like it) thrive in the climate of fear, poverty and oppression. Replace that with hope, prosperity and tolerance and IS will wither and die.
Finally, if peace means the partitioning of Syria, so be it. It's what happened in Yugoslavia and perhaps the establishment of a truly independent Kurdish state may not be the worst outcome either.
The question of protecting the Kurds is paramount if we are unwise enough to support Assad. Yet protecting them might mean a Iraq-Syria Kurdish protectorate, which would threaten Turkey. Yet if we support Assad, and he attacks the Kurds (and I see little chance he will not), then we are directly complicit in those deaths.
But there is an issue you are forgetting: the Russians, and especially the Iranians, are already backing Assad, and have his ear, if not pulling his strings. They already have leverage; to beat that leverage, we would have to offer things which I'm not sure you'd agree with. He'd play the three sides off against each other.
Assad's as much a problem as IS. The only solution is a post-Assad Syria run by someone else in the regime.
It's a mess; backing Assad would only make it messier, both morally and practically.
I wasn't forgetting the Russians - I just thought, in the current climate, that we would find it easier to work with the Iranians than the Russians if we wanted to operate at one remove (and that's not something I ever thought I would type)! It would be morally indefensible and politically reckless, but it would be plausible.
The key thing is that the Russians want Assad to stay. The Iranians might well be willing to consider a solution without him (he's a Sunni, after all, insofar as he is anything). If we want to shape a post-war, post-Assad Syria, then unfortunately now we do need to trump them. I don't *like* that idea, but it's a bit like growing old - not great, until you consider the alternatives.
The Kurds are going to be a perennial problem in the region whatever we do, and it is worth remembering they are also under grave threat from ISIS at the moment. What that solution could be, I must confess I don't know.
The whole situation is a mess, I agree, and a human catastrophe and everything else. The key problem is, that without Western intervention in some form it is certain to get worse. With it, there is a chance it might be mitigated, even at a high moral cost. Two proverbs: 'Choose the lesser of two evils', and 'take a risk, against a certainty.' That's what I was thinking of when I wrote my post.
I will finish by quoting the words of Richard Overy: 'The irony of the Second World War was that the Allies included a regime quite as brutal and indifferent to human rights as the Nazis they were fighting.' Yet, even allowing for the dreadful evils of Communism, life in Poland was considerably better under the Russians than it was under the Nazis. That's the kind of choice we are now faced with again.
Ms. Apocalypse, then we must fundamentally disagree. I think Merkel's policy is a combination of stupid and dangerous. Over the coming years, we shall see if that's the case.
On Schengen: the average Briton isn't trying to emigrate. It's not a valid comparison.
On Iraq: perhaps. The Arab Spring played a role. Not intervening to topple Assad could also be considered a failure. Hindsight's always 20/20.
I think it is. How will your average Syrian refugee have the disposable sources to have heard of Schengen. They did not plan to emigrate, circumstances caused it. I also don't know what we could have done to topple Assad.
EDIT: And the debate is has only today moved to numbers. Prior to that, it was whether we would take in any refugees.
Now you're going back in circles as I've pointed out ad tedium we already had taken in refugees. The debate this week has been about how many we should take in.
Ms. Apocalypse, you really don't think "No upper limit, we'll take everyone" is going to encourage more dangerous journeys and people smuggling?
Being aware of Schengen isn't a sign of being calculated/cunning, just being vaguely intelligent.
The West is masochistic over intervention. When we intervene a lot (Iraq), it's our fault. When we intervene a little (Libya) it's our fault. When we do nothing (Syria), it's our fault.
Personally, I blame ISIS. But there we are.
I don't think it'll make much of a difference. They were going to come anyway.
On Schengen I doubt your average joe in the UK would know what Schengen is. .
Aren't there figures that Sweden or whatever has had a disproportionate amount of asylum applications given their location and population, and it's because they said all Syrians would be accepted? It really seems Uncontroversial to me that while in General they will come so long as the area they are coming from is a mess, more will come and come toward specific areas if those areas are seen to be more appealing. That's why Germany gets more already, being appealing in other ways already. But it can still increase.
There are millions in desperate situations around Syria, some will always risk making the journey to Europe. How could making the end state of that journey less risky not encourage more? A few % more would add up to tens or hundreds of thousands more.
Now, if that Is to happen it's too late to prevent given Germany's call so we have to deal with that, but just because many were coming anyway doesn't mean actions taken now cannot exacerbate it considerably, and may well have just done so.
EDIT: And the debate is has only today moved to numbers. Prior to that, it was whether we would take in any refugees.
Now you're going back in circles as I've pointed out ad tedium we already had taken in refugees. The debate this week has been about how many we should take in.
And as I pointed out, Cameron's words earlier this week changed that principle of our acceptance of refugees. The debate this week was not about how much we should take in - on this very blog, a few days ago many were outright hostile to us taking in refugees altogether, let alone the number. The narrative in many newspapers was about whether we should take in any refugees - The Sun's editoral for example, called for us to take in refugees. Opposition arguments from Labour and the SNP were primarily shaped on whether we should accept refugees.
Ms. Apocalypse, then we must fundamentally disagree. I think Merkel's policy is a combination of stupid and dangerous. Over the coming years, we shall see if that's the case. On Schengen: the average Briton isn't trying to emigrate. It's not a valid comparison. On Iraq: perhaps. The Arab Spring played a role. Not intervening to topple Assad could also be considered a failure. Hindsight's always 20/20. Edited extra bit: Ms. Apocalypse, as I understand it, Germany's expecting 800,000 this year and has no upper limit on the number it will accept. Merkel isn't trying to create an EU plan. She's determined Germany's policy and is trying to use that to force the rest of the EU to take migrants her own country has allowed in. It's not solidarity she seeks but German dominance.
Correct. The fact that most of the refugees are not at the moment are not migrants as Mr H points out is irrelevant. The actual numbers are indeterminate and the potential numbers are set by those who have not yet even become refugees.
It's because I'm usually on the right, which leads to people thinking I'm Conservative (and I did vote for them last time, heroically slaying Balls). But I've voted for four other parties in the past, and imagine I'll vote for others in the near future too.
If Cameron wanted us to accept 120,000 or 240,000 (Cooper's monthly total over a year, or the Green position) I'd oppose it.
It's also fundamentally different to take people from camps adjacent to the conflict and just waving through illegal migration.
People compete with the numbers of refugees they'd be willing to take in as a thermometer of how unequivocally anti-racist they are. Actually, it's all about them.
Of course, that ends with most on the Left declaring "no limit", which leaves them nowhere to go in any sensible discussion on the matter.
A white skin - and indeed being Anglophone, whatever one's skin colour - are unmerited privileges. There is no healthy emotional reaction to either.
Errant nonsense. But you do sum up a common view on the Left with that post.
Please explain. I put it to you that a healthy response to privilege always involves rationalization. Such rationalization may or may not be adequate - for example, there will be plenty of people over the week-end giving thanks to God that they're not Syrian or Libyan or whatever. Is that "errant nonsense" too?
I don't agree with you that having a white skin is a sign of privilege. There are plenty of very poor white people around the world. It's a gross simplification, as well as being untrue.
As often with David's Saturday pieces, for which, as always, many thanks, I'm far from being in agreement.
I do agree we need to resolve the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to resolve Libya and Yemen and that can't be done by the EU or even the West acting in isolation. Regional problems require global solutions (or something like that).
Were I David Cameron, I would be proposing an international conference, sponsored by the UN, to resolve the political, economic and humanitarian aspects of the Syrian crisis and everyone would be invited (yes, everyone, including IS because you talk to the power, not to the people).
The Security Council members of the UN should take the line that there will be a solution and a political agreement for a post-Assad Syria and once that has been achieved, the world will do everything to a) rebuild and b) repatriate. Ultimately, the aim must be for Syrians to return to a peaceful Syria (and I suspect that's what most Syrians want as well).
There's no point however simply having another talking shop - the velvet glove has to have an iron fist and that means a UN resolution authorising force to stop the fighting if need be and that should involve ALL UN Security Council members including Russia and China. I'd have no problem with Chinese, Indian, Brazilian or whoever troops enforcing a UN-brokered ceasefire on the streets of Damascus and perhaps we can persuade the Gulf States to a) help fund the UN effort and b) help fund the refugee repatriation.
I've long thought IS (and groups like it) thrive in the climate of fear, poverty and oppression. Replace that with hope, prosperity and tolerance and IS will wither and die.
Finally, if peace means the partitioning of Syria, so be it. It's what happened in Yugoslavia and perhaps the establishment of a truly independent Kurdish state may not be the worst outcome either.
An interesting thought Stodge - but would ISIS even bother to turn up? And if they did, would they get past security checks? And if they did, what could be offered to them?
I'm not convinced that negotiations with people who probably still genuinely believe given the current military situation that they are on the brink of refounding the great medieval caliphates of Cairo and Baghdad is going to achieve anything.
Ms. Apocalypse, you really don't think "No upper limit, we'll take everyone" is going to encourage more dangerous journeys and people smuggling?
Being aware of Schengen isn't a sign of being calculated/cunning, just being vaguely intelligent.
The West is masochistic over intervention. When we intervene a lot (Iraq), it's our fault. When we intervene a little (Libya) it's our fault. When we do nothing (Syria), it's our fault.
Personally, I blame ISIS. But there we are.
I don't think it'll make much of a difference. They were going to come anyway.
On Schengen I doubt your average joe in the UK would know what Schengen is. .
Aren't there figures that Sweden or whatever has had a disproportionate amount of asylum applications given their location and population, and it's because they said all Syrians would be accepted? It really seems Uncontroversial to me that while in General they will come so long as the area they are coming from is a mess, more will come and come toward specific areas if those areas are seen to be more appealing. That's why Germany gets more already, being appealing in other ways already. But it can still increase.
There are millions in desperate situations around Syria, some will always risk making the journey to Europe. How could making the end state of that journey less risky not encourage more? A few % more would add up to tens or hundreds of thousands more.
Now, if that Is to happen it's too late to prevent given Germany's call so we have to deal with that, but just because many were coming anyway doesn't mean actions taken now cannot exacerbate it considerably, and may well have just done so.
It's more likely that many will settle in the Middle East, looking at recent history. I'm not aware of the Sweden story.
The government needs to be loud and proud about the work it has been doing .
I don't see why the UK should be forced to pick up the pieces of the EU's (and particularly German) stupidity.
The best thing to do would be to formalise the refugee camps adjacent to Syria, improve their sanitation and facilities, build a jetty and a dock, and land all those rescued in future by Operation Triton back there.
Perhaps that is part of the future solution although the countries collapsing under the weight of their refugee problem may have a different view. Jordan already has a quarter of its population in refugees. What are they going to say when we want to forcibly off load people back onto them? But even if that were possible it does not solve the problem of the people already in the EU.
I think Jordan and Turkey would be pleased with Western help with its refugees, particularly to place its refuges "in order" - and I'm sure an arrangement could be reached.
I don't understand this psychology about not wanting to engage with middle-eastern countries for fear of upsetting them, but bending over backwards in the EU ourselves to all and sundry.
Germany and Sweden have declared their policy and made their bed. They must now lie in it. If I were them I would review each and every case and deport those who are not genuine Syrian refugees (which is at least half of them) back to MENA.
If we had 15m genuine refugees in the UK how interested do you think we would be in help if we would only take a few more? Your solution is based on a fantasy. But in the real world people are here in the EU and cannot be returned. What do we do? We help. There is no alternative.
Sorry, no: you're the one living in fantasy David. As you sum up with that wonderful piece of whataboutism and moral hand-wringing. And who says non-genuine refugees cannot be returned? You're holding your hands up and surrendering on the issue before you've even considered it.
As David (Herdson) says: the vast majority of Syrians have stayed in the countries bordering Syria. It is there we should focus our efforts, as well as doing what we can to end the war in Syria and stabilise the country itself.
@Alanbrooke Given that most of the debate prior to Thursday centred on whether or not we should even accept refugees, and whether we had an obligation to get involved the scale of refugees is neither here nor there. The government, one that does not want to accept many refugees will decide how many we accept.
@Morris_Dancer For reasons I've explained in previous threads, I don't see Merkel pouring petrol over the fire. I don't believe that anything she could have said or done, would have stopped those making the journey to Europe. Really, only stabilising Syria can do that for sure. Does your average Syrian migrant really know what Schengen is? This plays into the idea these refugees are these calculating, cunning people. I suppose you agree with the assessment that Schengen caused the crisis, but then I disagree: I would attribute some of the blame to Western involvement in the Middle East, and how that has de-stabilised the region even further than it was before, paving the way for this crisis.
Now youre going in circles.
We had already accepted Syrian refugees before this week so the principle of taking them in was established
This week has been about the scale of influx and how they can be accommodated, it's a numbers game.
The UK has said it will take more in but from source in the camps not from Europe
Germany has to tidy its own mess up and stop griping.
You are correct and when this issue is being used ie misrepresented as a stick to beat Cameron and the tories with he and they must be supported.
@JosiasJessop - you make a number of very good points about Assad, and these are all issues that would need addressing especially the question of protecting the Kurds (this is also of course an issue with Turkey).
However, at the moment the immediate crisis demands some unpalatable choices:
1) We need to deal urgently with the refugee situation. Therefore, we either sort matters out in Syria or we accept refugees. The likely consequences of doing the latter (the march of the far right across Europe - watch to see whether Golden Dawn do well in Greece as a possible harbinger) means we have to do the former.
2) To do so, we have the choice of working with Assad, or with Isis. We cannot work with Isis, therefore we must for the moment swallow our loathing and disgust and work with Assad. We could do it indirectly, possibly even via Iran, but that is (a) a cowardly solution and (b) would give Iran, not us, any possible leverage over Assad should Isis be defeated.
Those are of course both medium term solutions (at best) and solving the migrant crisis now is urgent. It sounds horribly cynical, but has anyone suggested payments to Greece for each migrant it takes, in terms of its debt to the ECB or the Bundesbank being written off? Because it occurs to me that that might go a long way to resolving two major crises at once.
The question of protecting the Kurds is paramount if we are unwise enough to support Assad. Yet protecting them might mean a Iraq-Syria Kurdish protectorate, which would threaten Turkey. Yet if we support Assad, and he attacks the Kurds (and I see little chance he will not), then we are directly complicit in those deaths.
But there is an issue you are forgetting: the Russians, and especially the Iranians, are already backing Assad, and have his ear, if not pulling his strings. They already have leverage; to beat that leverage, we would have to offer things which I'm not sure you'd agree with. He'd play the three sides off against each other.
Assad's as much a problem as IS. The only solution is a post-Assad Syria run by someone else in the regime.
It's a mess; backing Assad would only make it messier, both morally and practically.
I don't see any need at all to back Assad (according to @Yokel he is getting all the kit he needs from Russia anyway). He may indirectly gain from a really concentrated attack on ISIL but that is a secondary consequence of the policy, not an objective.
If he was getting all the kit (and it's perhaps men he's most short of), then he should be winning.I want IS defeated; more, from my western liberal viewpoint, I'd like to see the mindset behind IS defeated. But that's unrealistic.
In the meantime, we need to protect people from both IS and Assad.
I also don't see the need to 'do something' as an inherently emotional response. It is also logical to try do find a solution to the crisis.
I also don't see why we can't both help those refugees who are in Jordan and Lebanon, as well those in Europe. Both groups, in various ways have been through utter hell. But it's an interesting point: that most Syrians have stayed in the Middle East, which rather counters some of the previous critical assessments of their motives, as simply wanting/feeling entitled to a Western lifestyle, as opposed to being in a desperate situation. It also counters the idea prevalent on PB, that no Middle Eastern country is doing anything. While some need to face up to their moral obligations to take in refugees, some already have. I suspect they'll end up taking in far more than Europe, when all is said and done.
There has been much criticism of those on Facebook, and those on Twitter, but it is these kind of people who, when we look back will be the trigger for politicians finding solutions. Certainly, I suspect it was Cameron's sense (rightly or wrongly) that there was a public desire to help the refugees, that led to a change in policy. A contrast to many who were saying that aid in itself was enough, and that we had no obligation, nor should we do anything else to help.
So many straw man and outright dishonest comments there from you Apocalypse. But just to pick out one in particular.
No one has said that no Middle Eastern country is doing anything. We have all been talking about Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan and how we need to support and help them. What we have been criticising is the wealthy Arab states - many of whom have been directly involved in propagating the Civil War in Syria and who have refused to do anything towards alleviating the suffering of the refugees. To use that as an attack on other posters is frankly bizarre. Mind you that kind of covers much of your posting on this subject which has been incoherent and infantile at best.
Many of us are making carefully considered appraisals of how best we can help those fleeing persecution without encouraging yet more dangerous migration across the Mediterranean. Meanwhile you are still thrashing around with the 'something must be done' brigade, pushing non-solutions that will just result in thousands more people dying unnecessarily. It is pretty shameful.
EDIT: And the debate is has only today moved to numbers. Prior to that, it was whether we would take in any refugees.
Now you're going back in circles as I've pointed out ad tedium we already had taken in refugees. The debate this week has been about how many we should take in.
And as I pointed out, Cameron's words earlier this week changed that principle of our acceptance of refugees. The debate this week was not about how much we should take in - on this very blog, a few days ago many were outright hostile to us taking in refugees altogether, let alone the number. The narrative in many newspapers was about whether we should take in any refugees - The Sun's editoral for example, called for us to take in refugees. Opposition arguments from Labour and the SNP were primarily shaped on whether we should accept refugees.
well as I said ever decreasing circles.
I wouldn't have had you down as a Sun reader though.
Ms. Apocalypse, probably because I've not voted Labour (as yet. I would probably have voted for Gwyneth Dunwoody if she'd been standing in my patch).
There's a hefty difference between 4,000 and 120,000-240,000. Not to mention it appears Cooper et al. want us to take them the Schengen/Merkellian quagmire.
A difference in numbers, but the principle is the same.
I think you'll find the numbers are actually the principle.
I don't agree. The principle is whether you are willingly to accept some refugees in your country or not.
Not really.
Based on your principle the UK has already taken in Syrian refugees to the tune of a couple of hundred, so nothing has actually changed by your yardstick if you don't think numbers are important.
On the other hand I'd argue it's the scale of the problem which is hitting the headlines and which is provoking the crisis. And the principle at stake is "how many" not some or none.
I would have agreed nothing would have changed, if it wasn't for Cameron's words that he did not believe taking in refugees would solve anything, and generally took a non-committal tone in regard to taking in further Syrian refugees. Now, that stance has changed and Cameron is now prepared to take in further refugees.
Well, we clearly disagree on what principles are at stake. Because I believe the most important is whether we accept refugees or not. Numbers can be decided by the government.
As of last week we had already taken in a couple of hundred refugees. This is about numbers not some\none.
Actually as of last week we had already taken in just over 5000 refugees from Syria. The couple of hundred were those taken under a specific scheme within the overall programme.
Ms. Apocalypse, you really don't think "No upper limit, we'll take everyone" is going to encourage more dangerous journeys and people smuggling?
Being aware of Schengen isn't a sign of being calculated/cunning, just being vaguely intelligent.
The West is masochistic over intervention. When we intervene a lot (Iraq), it's our fault. When we intervene a little (Libya) it's our fault. When we do nothing (Syria), it's our fault.
Personally, I blame ISIS. But there we are.
I don't think it'll make much of a difference. They were going to come anyway.
On Schengen I doubt your average joe in the UK would know what Schengen is. .
Aren't there figures that Sweden or whatever has had a disproportionate amount of asylum applications given their location and population, and it's because they said all Syrians would be accepted? It really seems Uncontroversial to me that while in General they will come so long as the area they are coming from is a mess, more will come and come toward specific areas if those areas are seen to be more appealing. That's why Germany gets more already, being appealing in other ways already. But it can still increase.
There are millions in desperate situations around Syria, some will always risk making the journey to Europe. How could making the end state of that journey less risky not encourage more? A few % more would add up to tens or hundreds of thousands more.
Now, if that Is to happen it's too late to prevent given Germany's call so we have to deal with that, but just because many were coming anyway doesn't mean actions taken now cannot exacerbate it considerably, and may well have just done so.
It's more likely that many will settle in the Middle East, looking at recent history. I'm not aware of the Sweden story.
Someone will correct me if I recall incorrectly I'm sure.
I'm sure most will settle nearby, that's not the question, the question is whether making a journey easier encourages more to make that journey. I would say the answer is unequivocally, yes. The next question is to what degree, as it may not be as large an increase resulting as feared, and if so if the additional amount saved outweighs the human cost of those still lost on the journey and the societal costs inthe host nations, as cold a calculation as that is. It might be so, it might not.
But enough about this depressing quagmire. A good day to all.
Ms. Apocalypse, probably because I've not voted Labour (as yet. I would probably have voted for Gwyneth Dunwoody if she'd been standing in my patch).
There's a hefty difference between 4,000 and 120,000-240,000. Not to mention it appears Cooper et al. want us to take them the Schengen/Merkellian quagmire.
A difference in numbers, but the principle is the same.
I think you'll find the numbers are actually the principle.
I don't agree. The principle is whether you are willingly to accept some refugees in your country or not.
Not really.
Based on your principle the UK has already taken in Syrian refugees to the tune of a couple of hundred, so nothing has actually changed by your yardstick if you don't think numbers are important.
On the other hand I'd argue it's the scale of the problem which is hitting the headlines and which is provoking the crisis. And the principle at stake is "how many" not some or none.
I would have agreed nothing would have changed, if it wasn't for Cameron's words that he did not believe taking in refugees would solve anything, and generally took a non-committal tone in regard to taking in further Syrian refugees. Now, that stance has changed and Cameron is now prepared to take in further refugees.
Well, we clearly disagree on what principles are at stake. Because I believe the most important is whether we accept refugees or not. Numbers can be decided by the government.
As of last week we had already taken in a couple of hundred refugees. This is about numbers not some\none.
Actually as of last week we had already taken in just over 5000 refugees from Syria. The couple of hundred were those taken under a specific scheme within the overall programme.
So basically the Merkel\media schtick was mendacious.
Imagine being on the housing waiting list of a council that offered to accommodate refugees.
'thanks a bunch'
Yes all very well, but they cannot even house people who are here, over 160K waiting on social housing in Scotland alone, so if same elsewhere that must be about 2 million UK wide.
Imagine being on the housing waiting list of a council that offered to accommodate refugees.
'thanks a bunch'
Yes all very well, but they cannot even house people who are here, over 160K waiting on social housing in Scotland alone, so if same elsewhere that must be about 2 million UK wide.
Not so far out if the GMB is to be believed - 1.84 million in 2014 (and I can't imagine it's gone down since).
@Alanbrooke I saw a screen picture of The Sun's editoral on twitter.
@Richard_Tyndall My arguments are not dishonest, nor are they strawman arguments. And yes, people have said that Middle Eastern states are not doing anything, and are not doing their fair share. Some, such as @DaemonBarber have talked about the contribution of Middle Eastern countries, as has @Sunil_Prasannan. But many others have not, and indeed have made arguments that why should Europe being housing these refugees instead of the Middle East.
As I said before, this 'do something' argument that you have reiterated is, if anything a false argument. Because at this stage most people - including Cameron do believe that we should be doing something to help solve the crisis. And many have not made carefully considered appraisals. Prior to Thursday, many on PB were actively hostile to the idea that any of this was even the UK's problem, and thought that our aid contribution was enough. It has only been since Cameron's announcement, when many have now softened to the idea of accepting refugees, and now the argument has become about numbers, and methods. But many on PB have also actively demonised this refugees, and have had very little sympathy for their cause. That is pretty shameful.
My assessment on other posters is response to others criticise the vein of my arguments as virtual-signalling, and so on. You cannot have a situation where one side is allowed to depict arguments as virtual-signalling, mocking them, dismissing them and then not expect a response back. Suddenly, now that has happened my arguments are 'infantile' and 'incoherent'. No, I reject that assessment of my arguments completely. If anything, I would say many of the arguments criticising refugees have been infantile.
There are several elements to racism and anti-racist rhetoric. I'd be inclined to let in anglophone Christians as a preference. That makes me bad. So be it. I'm old enough to not care.
Colour's not important. About thirty years ago, we actually took in a young Nigerian lad who was on a work experience month where I worked. We didn't charge him rent and he was no problem at all - apart from the fact it took me a week to stop him calling me 'sir'. But when you share your house with anyone, even relatives, it is an imposition.
When I go back to Boston, I see there's resentment of white Christian Poles and Lithuanians because they're different. And also that they overload the schools and services locally. It's probably the same feeling of imposition I had in sharing the house with someone else. Yet they are 'racist'.
But taking in different cultures completely will cause problems even if they're not all head-hunting IS people. We have to accept this will happen and not pretend it's due to innate badness/selfishness on the part of the locals.
We can't all be virtue-signalling Guardian readers.
An interesting thought Stodge - but would ISIS even bother to turn up? And if they did, would they get past security checks? And if they did, what could be offered to them?
I'm not convinced that negotiations with people who probably still genuinely believe given the current military situation that they are on the brink of refounding the great medieval caliphates of Cairo and Baghdad is going to achieve anything.
You have to ask what the sides want:
*) What do IS want? *) What does Assad want? *) What do the Kurds want? *) What do we, the west, want? *) What does Iran want? *) What does Russia want? *) What do neighbouring countries want?
For all those, how much would they compromise in order to come to an accommodation? As you say, in the case of IS, probably not much. Assad would probably want all of Syria back as well. And what do the Kurds want? They almost certainly would be safer in their own state, but can - and should - they be granted that? (*)
Doing that, it's hard to see how an agreement can be reached, although it may be possible. But sadly that'd be the UN's job, and they're hopeless in this sort of situation.
I may have to lie down.. this is the first time ever..and may it be the very last time ever..that I agree with MG with regards to the UK homeless.. but he is still a prat..
Ms. Apocalypse, probably because I've not voted Labour (as yet. I would probably have voted for Gwyneth Dunwoody if she'd been standing in my patch).
There's a hefty difference between 4,000 and 120,000-240,000. Not to mention it appears Cooper et al. want us to take them the Schengen/Merkellian quagmire.
A difference in numbers, but the principle is the same.
I think you'll find the numbers are actually the principle.
I don't agree. The principle is whether you are willingly to accept some refugees in your country or not.
Not really.
Based on your principle the UK has already taken in Syrian refugees to the tune of a couple of hundred, so nothing has actually changed by your yardstick if you don't think numbers are important.
On the other hand I'd argue it's the scale of the problem which is hitting the headlines and which is provoking the crisis. And the principle at stake is "how many" not some or none.
I would have agreed nothing would have changed, if it wasn't for Cameron's words that he did not believe taking in refugees would solve anything, and generally took a non-committal tone in regard to taking in further Syrian refugees. Now, that stance has changed and Cameron is now prepared to take in further refugees.
Well, we clearly disagree on what principles are at stake. Because I believe the most important is whether we accept refugees or not. Numbers can be decided by the government.
As of last week we had already taken in a couple of hundred refugees. This is about numbers not some\none.
Actually as of last week we had already taken in just over 5000 refugees from Syria. The couple of hundred were those taken under a specific scheme within the overall programme.
So basically the Merkel\media schtick was mendacious.
Yes. Whilst the media and people like Apocalypse have been ranting and raving, the UK has, over the last couple of years just been quietly getting on and helping refugees both in the camps and by welcoming them into the country.
As of the end of Q2 2015 the UK had accepted 5102 Syrian refugees and asylum seekers since the start of the civil war.
[Edit: link not working properly. Will try and find another.]
It is not enough but it is certainly not the couple of hundred claimed by the twitterati.
A difference in numbers, but the principle is the same.
I think you'll find the numbers are actually the principle.
I don't agree. The principle is whether you are willingly to accept some refugees in your country or not.
Not really.
Based on your principle the UK has already taken in Syrian refugees to the tune of a couple of hundred, so nothing has actually changed by your yardstick if you don't think numbers are important.
On the other hand I'd argue it's the scale of the problem which is hitting the headlines and which is provoking the crisis. And the principle at stake is "how many" not some or none.
I would have agreed nothing would have changed, if it wasn't for Cameron's words that he did not believe taking in refugees would solve anything, and generally took a non-committal tone in regard to taking in further Syrian refugees. Now, that stance has changed and Cameron is now prepared to take in further refugees.
Well, we clearly disagree on what principles are at stake. Because I believe the most important is whether we accept refugees or not. Numbers can be decided by the government.
As of last week we had already taken in a couple of hundred refugees. This is about numbers not some\none.
Actually as of last week we had already taken in just over 5000 refugees from Syria. The couple of hundred were those taken under a specific scheme within the overall programme.
So basically the Merkel\media schtick was mendacious.
Yes. Whilst the media and people like Apocalypse have been ranting and raving, the UK has, over the last couple of years just been quietly getting on and helping refugees both in the camps and by welcoming them into the country.
As of the end of Q2 2015 the UK had accepted 5102 Syrian refugees and asylum seekers since the start of the civil war.
'Ranting and Raving'. Not everyone is going to agree with the PB assessment of things - or even the PB centre-right assessment of matters. That does not make their arguments 'ranting and raving'. As for my own so-called ranting and raving, in the past couple of days other posters have mentioned the UK's aid contribution among others things we've done. But these contributions do change the fact that the immediate situation is getting worse and requires a solution (or rather solutions). Ironically, those on the Left have been portrayed as engaging in a virtual-signalling that makes them feel better but is useless. The constant mention of the UK's previous contributions to the crisis if anything matches that exact description. It may make us feel better about our own moral standing, but fundamentally does nothing to alter the current situation.
First, I entirely agree with the rest, so no point in quoting it.
This last bit, I don't think we even need to guess. Turkey has been fighting a war against the Kurds for however many years (I don't have a figure) and when the idea of a new state of Kurdistan was first seriously mooted in (correct me if I'm wrong) the aftermath of the Gulf War, they went apeshit and made sure that the de facto independent Kurdish provinces of Iraq were confined to Iraq.
I think the only question surrounding a Kurdish state would be whether or not the ink on its founding articles had time to dry before Turkey declared war on it. I know there are reports of a thaw, but I think quite a lot of them are wishful thinking. If Turkey were genuinely willing to consider a united country of Kurdistan, it wouldn't have been neutral for so long in the war against ISIS.
The politics of the migration crisis changed before that photo was taken and arguably before Merkel changed her policy simply because of the scale of the movements.
The EU and the UK government has been very sloooooow to react, which has contributed to the sense of 'crisis' and catching up.
I think rather that the media have over-reacted far too quickly. The public support for DC's position I think reflects this. The BBC in particular has been pretty disgraceful in leading the hand-wringing. They've shown a lack of objectivity and encouraged a wave of virtue signalling which has demeaned them.
DC response was seemingly dragged out of him. Let's hope it works and is not too little too late.
The petition demanding a parliamentary debate gathered over 400k signatures in a few days. That's quite remarkable and I don't think you can put that down to "virtue signalling".
Surely signing a petition (and of course passing it on) is the absolute epitome of virtue signalling? Costs nothing, advertises your concern.
The UKs previous contributions have lifted many families from the Syrian camps.. go tell them that nothing has changed
I'm sure that if anyone knows how the situation has not been changed it's them. They've gone through hell and back, and now they see growing numbers of people going through the exact same things they've been through and how bad the crisis is getting.
'Ranting and Raving'. Not everyone is going to agree with the PB assessment of things - or even the PB centre-right assessment of matters. That does not make their arguments 'ranting and raving'. As for my own so-called ranting and raving, in the past couple of days other posters have mentioned the UK's aid contribution among others things we've done. But these contributions do change the fact that the immediate situation is getting worse and requires a solution (or rather solutions). Ironically, those on the Left have been portrayed as engaging in a virtual-signalling that makes them feel better but is useless. The constant mention of the UK's previous contributions to the crisis if anything matches that exact description. It may make us feel better about our own moral standing, but fundamentally does nothing to alter the current situation.
My argument with you and your ilk is that the 'solution' you have come up with will actually make things far worse and result in hundreds and probably thousands more deaths.
Cameron - who I have spent almost my entire PB life attacking and criticising - has come up with what appears to be a very measured and responsible plan, one that will help many of those in need whilst making it clear that we will not encourage the migrants crossing the Mediterranean. His plan will hopefully save lives. Yours and Merkel's will just kill even more people.
How quickly the term economic migrant has been lost in all the noise and they are all now "refugees" Indeed there are refugees In the masses that are coming but let's not kid ourselves that they all are coming from war torn Syria. They are not.
Merkels decision will only now result in many more coming and many more dying. Those who wish to harm us will also see this as a free pass into the countries previously they may well have had difficulty entering. As for what happens in Europe Merkel does not decide what we do and neither does the EU when they decided to have open borders and then stand there will open arms for all and sundry. We opted out and a go thing too.
As for compassion the arguments are equally horse manure. This country has more compassion and offered more protection to the persecuted than most of the EU put together over many years and still does to this day without having to broadcast the fact. The left wing may not like that fact but it does not alter the fact.
First, I entirely agree with the rest, so no point in quoting it.
This last bit, I don't think we even need to guess. Turkey has been fighting a war against the Kurds for however many years (I don't have a figure) and when the idea of a new state of Kurdistan was first seriously mooted in (correct me if I'm wrong) the aftermath of the Gulf War, they went apeshit and made sure that the de facto independent Kurdish provinces of Iraq were confined to Iraq.
I think the only question surrounding a Kurdish state would be whether or not the ink on its founding articles had time to dry before Turkey declared war on it. I know there are reports of a thaw, but I think quite a lot of them are wishful thinking. If Turkey were genuinely willing to consider a united country of Kurdistan, it wouldn't have been neutral for so long in the war against ISIS.
Yep. It was very disturbing that when the Turks decided to get into the air war in Syria and Iraq they bombed not only IS targets but Kurdish targets as well. I think it is very clear how they will react to any talk of a Kurdish state.
Apocalypse.. Take off the blinkers. This problem will never be solved externally.. it has to come from the close participants..At some point even the so called limited largesse and the false guilt of western nations will run out...then the flow may be the other way. People will only put up with so much and that point is fast approaching.
The UKs previous contributions have lifted many families from the Syrian camps.. go tell them that nothing has changed
I'm sure that if anyone knows how the situation has not been changed it's them. They've gone through hell and back, and now they see growing numbers of people going through the exact same things they've been through and how bad the crisis is getting.
Once again a post highlighting that you are far more interested in making political points than finding practical solutions that help people. You really are a waste of space. Maybe we can swap you for a Syrian.
First, I entirely agree with the rest, so no point in quoting it.
This last bit, I don't think we even need to guess. Turkey has been fighting a war against the Kurds for however many years (I don't have a figure) and when the idea of a new state of Kurdistan was first seriously mooted in (correct me if I'm wrong) the aftermath of the Gulf War, they went apeshit and made sure that the de facto independent Kurdish provinces of Iraq were confined to Iraq.
I think the only question surrounding a Kurdish state would be whether or not the ink on its founding articles had time to dry before Turkey declared war on it. I know there are reports of a thaw, but I think quite a lot of them are wishful thinking. If Turkey were genuinely willing to consider a united country of Kurdistan, it wouldn't have been neutral for so long in the war against ISIS.
The 'thaw' was only because the Kurdish fighters wanted to be released to concentrate on the bigger threat in Iraq/Syria, and because Turkey quite liked the idea of many of those fighters being killed off. It suited both sides.
As you say, it is now summer and the 'thaw' appears to be well and truly over, to the detriment of civilians on both sides.
As an aside, Kurdish nationalism has been around for a couple of hundred years, and I *think* the serious potential of a Kurdish state predated GW1 - which was why Sadaam had been repressing them before thaat war. The PUK in Turkey is also a 1970s invention, I think.
(Note, IANAE, but read up on these problems when I inherited family in Turkey).
On (1. and (2. the trouble is, we are at the point where more are going to come anyway. As I said before, the only way to really stop them coming is to affect the situation in Syria. Economic migrants already feel emboldened, we just have to sort refugees from pure economic migrants.
I don't see why trying to get those out of camps, would make their lives harder. I think you may be mistaken that I think Merkel's policy is a solution to those in camps - I don't. I think that requires a separate policy. Likewise, with (4. which I believe again requires a different strategy that is more long-term. I elaborated a bit more to @MikeK.
On the checks: good. Now tell me how will you turn away people who do not have the information (for whatever reason) to pass those checks. What happens to them? They'll try to come in anyway, and there will be more drowned children.
It's obvious the nearer you get the migrants to source, before they've had a chance to travel too far and traffickers have got their greedy mitts on them, the easier verification is. Therefore verify them in the camps.
And the more we accept, the more will come. Despite the doom and gloom merchants in Labour, the UK is a good country to live (although imperfect), which is why so many people want to come here.
What is the upper limit you think the UK can take? (Apologies if you've mentioned this before).
On your first point: I don't see why this situation requires an especially different method to how the UK usually handles failed asylum cases.
I'm not disagreeing with Cameron's policy on taking migrants from camps.
The 800,000 figure for Germany was first mentioned weeks ago by the German minister for immigration. He said he expected that was the number of people he expected to arrive in Germany, not that germany wanted to take that number, and that it was going to be a massive problem for Germany to cope with such an influx.
The fellow who paid people smugglers to get him an his family to Greece and whose wife and children drowned on the second attempt, the first ended when the boat sank, was not fleeing from death and persecution. He and his family had been living safely in a flat in Istanbul. Anyone over here who treated their children with such a reckless disregard for their safety would be looking at a long gaol sentence.
If the civil war in Syria stopped tomorrow and the people in the camps returned home to safety it would not stop the migration crisis. We may be fixated about Syrians this week but the boats that were/are setting off from North Africa are full of young men from Somalia, Eritrea and other places in West and East sub-saharan Africa. People from Syria are just a small part of the problem.
And on that happy note I am off to buy prawns for my cat - just can't get decent oysters round here.
Cheers for the considered comment. I'd be happy to support Cameron putting down a UNSC sponsoring a peace conference if I thought it would do any good but I'm afraid I don't. The two (and more) sides will only come to a political settlement if they think it will do them any good and a compromise can only be reached if both are willing to live with each other: otherwise, what would be the point for them? For them to even accept it would be to admit the legitimacy of the other (and of the international community in the case of ISIS), which has to be highly doubtful.
Where I would agree is in the need to build an international consensus, and there there is some hope if the Assad-Ba'ath solution is to be adopted. Russia might be brought on board - though there would remain the complication of sanctions re Ukraine - and most Middle East countries would presumably prefer a stable Syria to a chaotic one. If Assad is personally beyond the pale then some form of exile and immunity from criminal charges could be arranged. Again, very far from ideal but needs must in such circumstances. St Helena has precedent.
As for the Kurds, yes, it's a tricky one as that too has implications for Turkey and Iran (and Iraq, though the issue's largely resolved there). An autonomous region may be one possibility if some meaningful guarantee can be put in place.
I also agree that you are right that unless there is the means to enforce a settlement then it won't count for anything. The question is, are there those means? Would China, India, Brazil or whoever be willing to contribute troops to Syria (as an aside, I'm not convinced that Chinese troops would be a good idea)? How many British lives should be laid on the line to secure peace? It's all very well passing a UNSCR to 'enforce' a ceasefire but how is that practically done? Bosnia-Serbia suggests one option but the scale needed in Syria would be of a different order of magnitude.
In many ways, I don't think we're that far apart in objectives. I just don't think your solution is viable. You do - which is why you don't think my option should be supported as the least, because it then wouldn't be. Like I said in the leader, it's on calls like these that statesmen earn their cash.
@Richard_Tyndall I have no idea how on earth you managed to conclude I was trying to make a political point. I was merely giving my honest a opinion - that I think those people will see that the crisis is getting worse, and empathise with those going through what they've been through. You've accused me of attacking others, but your remarks in particular are hardly constructive. You've accused me of being dishonest, creating strawman arguments, and being infantile - but you've miscontrued my arguments, not once but twice.
Maybe you ought to realise you can disagree with someone without restorting to personal attacks.
One thing I find shocking about how "virtuous" many are viewing the Germans being on this subject is to completely ignore the issue of foreign aid. The UK has for years committed to 0.7% of GDP as foreign aid, Germany also signed up to that over a decade ago but has only actually been spending half of that.
If Germany was spending the same as us on foreign aid that is a further $14bn that could be spent on aid to those in need near Syria.
But I suppose not honouring your commitments is nothing compared to saying everyone is welcome - but without giving visas or safe transport so people have to cross on rafts/through Hungary first.
I may have to lie down.. this is the first time ever..and may it be the very last time ever..that I agree with MG with regards to the UK homeless.. but he is still a prat..
Pity you cannot get over your petty bitter twisted self Dickie
Agree with Cameron's policy of helping local camps (though I think the posts that say that Syrian refugees have "decided" to stay there underestimate the difficulties and risks in getting further), but we also need to address the problem of the refugees already in Europe. Merkel's policy seems to me to reflect the right generous spirit and our reluctance to help address that aspect is wrong.
On Syria, while I'd prefer to see Assad win to ISIS or the current enduring slaughter, I don't think we should get actively involved in choosing one tyrant over another. We should however refrain from trying to undermine Assad and encourage our partners to take the same policy.
'Ranting and Raving'. Not everyone is going to agree with the PB assessment of things - or even the PB centre-right assessment of matters. That does not make their arguments 'ranting and raving'. As for my own so-called ranting and raving, in the past couple of days other posters have mentioned the UK's aid contribution among others things we've done. But these contributions do change the fact that the immediate situation is getting worse and requires a solution (or rather solutions). Ironically, those on the Left have been portrayed as engaging in a virtual-signalling that makes them feel better but is useless. The constant mention of the UK's previous contributions to the crisis if anything matches that exact description. It may make us feel better about our own moral standing, but fundamentally does nothing to alter the current situation.
My argument with you and your ilk is that the 'solution' you have come up with will actually make things far worse and result in hundreds and probably thousands more deaths.
Cameron - who I have spent almost my entire PB life attacking and criticising - has come up with what appears to be a very measured and responsible plan, one that will help many of those in need whilst making it clear that we will not encourage the migrants crossing the Mediterranean. His plan will hopefully save lives. Yours and Merkel's will just kill even more people.
And my argument is that I don't believe Merkel's solution is doing that. It relies on an argument that without the proposal Syrians would not be travelling to Europe. But they already are. And since they are already here, rather than deport them back to some camp, it's better to take them in.
On (1. and (2. the trouble is, we are at the point where more are going to come anyway. As I said before, the only way to really stop them coming is to affect the situation in Syria. Economic migrants already feel emboldened, we just have to sort refugees from pure economic migrants.
I don't see why trying to get those out of camps, would make their lives harder. I think you may be mistaken that I think Merkel's policy is a solution to those in camps - I don't. I think that requires a separate policy. Likewise, with (4. which I believe again requires a different strategy that is more long-term. I elaborated a bit more to @MikeK.
On the checks: good. Now tell me how will you turn away people who do not have the information (for whatever reason) to pass those checks. What happens to them? They'll try to come in anyway, and there will be more drowned children.
It's obvious the nearer you get the migrants to source, before they've had a chance to travel too far and traffickers have got their greedy mitts on them, the easier verification is. Therefore verify them in the camps.
And the more we accept, the more will come. Despite the doom and gloom merchants in Labour, the UK is a good country to live (although imperfect), which is why so many people want to come here.
What is the upper limit you think the UK can take? (Apologies if you've mentioned this before).
On your first point: I don't see why this situation requires an especially different method to how the UK usually handles failed asylum cases.
I'm not disagreeing with Cameron's policy on taking migrants from camps.
The upper limit? I think 15,000.
The UK handles asylum cases, and especially failed ones, very poorly. I'm not sure you should use it as an example.
On (1. and (2. the trouble is, we are at the point where more are going to come anyway. As I said before, the only way to really stop them coming is to affect the situation in Syria. Economic migrants already feel emboldened, we just have to sort refugees from pure economic migrants.
I don't see why trying to get those out of camps, would make their lives harder. I think you may be mistaken that I think Merkel's policy is a solution to those in camps - I don't. I think that requires a separate policy. Likewise, with (4. which I believe again requires a different strategy that is more long-term. I elaborated a bit more to @MikeK.
On the checks: good. Now tell me how will you turn away people who do not have the information (for whatever reason) to pass those checks. What happens to them? They'll try to come in anyway, and there will be more drowned children.
It's obvious the nearer you get the migrants to source, before they've had a chance to travel too far and traffickers have got their greedy mitts on them, the easier verification is. Therefore verify them in the camps.
And the more we accept, the more will come. Despite the doom and gloom merchants in Labour, the UK is a good country to live (although imperfect), which is why so many people want to come here.
What is the upper limit you think the UK can take? (Apologies if you've mentioned this before).
On your first point: I don't see why this situation requires an especially different method to how the UK usually handles failed asylum cases.
I'm not disagreeing with Cameron's policy on taking migrants from camps.
The upper limit? I think 15,000.
The UK handles asylum cases, and especially failed ones, very poorly. I'm not sure you should use it as an example.
Mr Herdson, you make a lot of very valid points and in an empathetic and humane tone. But where you are wrong is in presenting this as if it is an either/or situation. It isn't. It's a "do everything" situation. Stop the wars. Help the millions of refugees in countries close to their homelands. Persuade all nations to help with both of those - especially those in the region where conflict is occurring. Sort out a coherent EU response to the refugees already on their way. Look after the human beings whereever they are. Take some of them, especially orphan children. Work to reduce hostility to the west. Detect terrorists. Convince people that "foreign" or "different" is not the same as "evil" or "threatening" or, God help us "less deserving", "of less worth" or "not entitled to human rights". Figure out how to help rebuild countries without being labelled as interfering. Come up with some sort of UN strategy for dealing with ISIS and similar groups, who are an existential threat to a lot of UN member states. Prepare for a long haul and millions more people on the move. And try not to give up in despair at how hard this is going to be.
Agree with Cameron's policy of helping local camps (though I think the posts that say that Syrian refugees have "decided" to stay there underestimate the difficulties and risks in getting further), but we also need to address the problem of the refugees already in Europe. Merkel's policy seems to me to reflect the right generous spirit and our reluctance to help address that aspect is wrong.
On Syria, while I'd prefer to see Assad win to ISIS or the current enduring slaughter, I don't think we should get actively involved in choosing one tyrant over another. We should however refrain from trying to undermine Assad and encourage our partners to take the same policy.
How is Merkel being "generous" by refusing to give even under these circumstances the foreign aid/international development that they committed to over a decade ago? How is Merkel being "generous" by telling people to come to Germany but to make their own way there so they board rafts and pay people smugglers?
@Richard_Tyndall I have no idea how on earth you managed to conclude I was trying to make a political point. I was merely giving my honest a opinion - that I think those people will see that the crisis is getting worse, and empathise with those going through what they've been through. You've accused me of attacking others, but your remarks in particular are hardly constructive. You've accused me of being dishonest, creating strawman arguments, and being infantile - but you've miscontrued my arguments, not once but twice.
Maybe you ought to realise you can disagree with someone without restorting to personal attacks.
If I have misconstrued your arguments then maybe you should have presented them better since it seems most other people here have also 'misconstrued' them.
And yes you have been making political points. Claiming that Cameron has only changed his mind because of the media and denigrating what is being and has been done whilst at the same time promoting a policy which will actually see far more people die is, to my mind, playing politics.
Mr Herdson, you make a lot of very valid points and in an empathetic and humane tone. But where you are wrong is in presenting this as if it is an either/or situation. It isn't. It's a "do everything" situation. Stop the wars. Help the millions of refugees in countries close to their homelands. Persuade all nations to help with both of those - especially those in the region where conflict is occurring. Sort out a coherent EU response to the refugees already on their way. Look after the human beings whereever they are. Take some of them, especially orphan children. Work to reduce hostility to the west. Detect terrorists. Convince people that "foreign" or "different" is not the same as "evil" or "threatening" or, God help us "less deserving", "of less worth" or "not entitled to human rights". Figure out how to help rebuild countries without being labelled as interfering. Come up with some sort of UN strategy for dealing with ISIS and similar groups, who are an existential threat to a lot of UN member states. Prepare for a long haul and millions more people on the move. And try not to give up in despair at how hard this is going to be.
There might be an argument for taking refugees from Lebanese camps over Europe, it's not really the most stable country at the best of times and the staggering number of refugees it has per capita can't help that.
Claiming that we'd only taken 216 was mendacious. Including dependants, we've taken 6,000. There are also 17,000 Syrians here on other visas who aren't going to get sent back any time soon.
Any assistance that we give to other EU States must be conditional upon stopping further crossings across the Mediterranean.
One thing I find shocking about how "virtuous" many are viewing the Germans being on this subject is to completely ignore the issue of foreign aid. The UK has for years committed to 0.7% of GDP as foreign aid, Germany also signed up to that over a decade ago but has only actually been spending half of that.
If Germany was spending the same as us on foreign aid that is a further $14bn that could be spent on aid to those in need near Syria.
But I suppose not honouring your commitments is nothing compared to saying everyone is welcome - but without giving visas or safe transport so people have to cross on rafts/through Hungary first.
There has been a lot of concern about foreign aid levels but I always saw this as the method that we could help resolve the local problems while avoiding the issues we now seeing coming up the Hungarian Highways. Merkels decision has simply rendered foreign aid pretty much irrelevant now and we might just as well spend it on additional razor wire and border controls to help identify the true refugees and in genuine need from the majority of the chancers.
'Ranting and Raving'. Not everyone is going to agree with the PB assessment of things - or even the PB centre-right assessment of matters. That does not make their arguments 'ranting and raving'. As for my own so-called ranting and raving, in the past couple of days other posters have mentioned the UK's aid contribution among others things we've done. But these contributions do change the fact that the immediate situation is getting worse and requires a solution (or rather solutions). Ironically, those on the Left have been portrayed as engaging in a virtual-signalling that makes them feel better but is useless. The constant mention of the UK's previous contributions to the crisis if anything matches that exact description. It may make us feel better about our own moral standing, but fundamentally does nothing to alter the current situation.
My argument with you and your ilk is that the 'solution' you have come up with will actually make things far worse and result in hundreds and probably thousands more deaths.
Cameron - who I have spent almost my entire PB life attacking and criticising - has come up with what appears to be a very measured and responsible plan, one that will help many of those in need whilst making it clear that we will not encourage the migrants crossing the Mediterranean. His plan will hopefully save lives. Yours and Merkel's will just kill even more people.
And my argument is that I don't believe Merkel's solution is doing that. It relies on an argument that without the proposal Syrians would not be travelling to Europe. But they already are. And since they are already here, rather than deport them back to some camp, it's better to take them in.
Rubbish. The reason so many are travelling now is that the EU already has a policy in place that it will not send them back. Every year the situation gets worse because we have not been firm about repatriation. The migrants know that if they get to Europe they will not be sent back and so they keep coming. Merkel is simply formalising what has already been the flawed policy that you support and that is leading to thousands of deaths.
Supplying aid to the millions of refugees in Syria's neighbouring countries and taking in the relative few seeking asylum in developed countries is not mutually exclusive and the blog author should feel ashamed for suggesting otherwise.
The 'thaw' was only because the Kurdish fighters wanted to be released to concentrate on the bigger threat in Iraq/Syria, and because Turkey quite liked the idea of many of those fighters being killed off. It suited both sides.
As you say, it is now summer and the 'thaw' appears to be well and truly over, to the detriment of civilians on both sides.
As an aside, Kurdish nationalism has been around for a couple of hundred years, and I *think* the serious potential of a Kurdish state predated GW1 - which was why Sadaam had been repressing them before thaat war. The PUK in Turkey is also a 1970s invention, I think.
(Note, IANAE, but read up on these problems when I inherited family in Turkey).
I'm not an expert either, and I have no doubt you know far more than me. If I am correct, there was an agitation for a Kurdish state when Britain was handed the mandate of Mesopatamia in the aftermath of the First World War, which was summarily dismissed and a rising to try and enforce it rather brutally suppressed. I was thinking of the time when it became a de facto reality as part of the Coalition's no-fly zone which allowed the Kurds to actually operate independently, which meant an independent Kurdistan was not merely a wish, but at least a partial reality.
The Turks didn't like it then and they clearly wouldn't like it now. I had actually forgotten about them bombing the Kurdish positions (thank you @Richard_Tyndall) but it just goes to show that there is very little room to manoeuvre in any of this. Which - to bring me back to my original point - I think eventually we will have to back up the Ba'athist regime, if not Assad himself, to try and restore a semblance of stability to the Middle East from where things can begin to improve.
(Merely 'not trying to undermine [Assad]' would be the worst of all worlds - not hindering ISIS, and not giving us any clout to try and improve things in Syria if and when ISIS are defeated. If we have to do something that is bad, and morally wrong, and repugnant to us all, could we at least have the courage to do it openly?)
One thing I find shocking about how "virtuous" many are viewing the Germans being on this subject is to completely ignore the issue of foreign aid. The UK has for years committed to 0.7% of GDP as foreign aid, Germany also signed up to that over a decade ago but has only actually been spending half of that.
If Germany was spending the same as us on foreign aid that is a further $14bn that could be spent on aid to those in need near Syria.
But I suppose not honouring your commitments is nothing compared to saying everyone is welcome - but without giving visas or safe transport so people have to cross on rafts/through Hungary first.
There has been a lot of concern about foreign aid levels but I always saw this as the method that we could help resolve the local problems while avoiding the issues we now seeing coming up the Hungarian Highways. Merkels decision has simply rendered foreign aid pretty much irrelevant now and we might just as well spend it on additional razor wire and border controls to help identify the true refugees and in genuine need from the majority of the chancers.
Approximately 90% of refugees are still in the Middle East, not in Europe. Foreign aid is very much not irrelevant until we start talking about taking tens of millions not hundreds of thousands.
I don't see why trying to get those out of camps, would make their lives harder. I think you may be mistaken that I think Merkel's policy is a solution to those in camps - I don't. I think that requires a separate policy. Likewise, with (4. which I believe again requires a different strategy that is more long-term. I elaborated more to @MikeK.
It's obvious the nearer you get the migrants to source, before they've had a chance to travel too far and traffickers have got their greedy mitts on them, the easier verification is. Therefore verify them in the camps.
And the more we accept, the more will come. Despite the doom and gloom merchants in Labour, the UK is a good country to live (although imperfect), which is why so many people want to come here.
What is the upper limit you think the UK can take? (Apologies if you've mentioned this before).
On your first point: I don't see why this situation requires an especially different method to how the UK usually handles failed asylum cases.
I'm not disagreeing with Cameron's policy on taking migrants from camps.
The upper limit? I think 15,000.
AIUI the problem with using the existing asylum system is that it is broken. It is like the planning system - massively bureaucratic and with endless opportunities for Appeal and delay.
It is regular for the process to take *years* for some cases, and 1-2 years for many, which is one reason why we have a constant kerfuffle about women and children being detained at Yarl's Wood and other centres for months or years.
If decisions were made and implemented quickly then that whole detention controversy could not exist. But that system doesn't work either, which is imo why it would be an appalling idea to ship people here in large numbers. We are not capable at present of returning them even if we wanted to.
To me it is like using a system designed for processing individual specimen bonzai trees for the first 10- years of their life to mass produce cabbages, or to use one operating threatre for doing triage when there are 1000 casualties - when a bottle of whisky, a hacksaw and a barrel of tar would save more lives.
I have no idea how one would set up a suitable system in the UK legal context that would be legal delay proof.
btw thanks for the compliment (or exclusion from the un-compliment :-) ) on the previous thread. My biggest problem is starting a conversation then vanishnig half way through.
I still owe you an example of "vitriolic hatred" of landlords and some replies on feminism. For LL try here in the comments. No coincidence that it is at the end of an article of extreme examples.
@Richard_Tyndall I have no idea how on earth you managed to conclude I was trying to make a political point. I was merely giving my honest a opinion - that I think those people will see that the crisis is getting worse, and empathise with those going through what they've been through. You've accused me of attacking others, but your remarks in particular are hardly constructive. You've accused me of being dishonest, creating strawman arguments, and being infantile - but you've miscontrued my arguments, not once but twice.
Maybe you ought to realise you can disagree with someone without restorting to personal attacks.
If I have misconstrued your arguments then maybe you should have presented them better since it seems most other people here have also 'misconstrued' them.
And yes you have been making political points. Claiming that Cameron has only changed his mind because of the media and denigrating what is being and has been done whilst at the same time promoting a policy which will actually see far more people die is, to my mind, playing politics.
Most people? A vast majority of whom I've talked with in this thread have understood my arguments perfectly the fine.
I genuinely believe that Cameron's change of mind is mainly down to media response - by and large, politicians are incredibly sensitive to issue of immigration and how it will go down in the public mood - and newspapers are often seen as litmus test of the public mood. Prior to the Mail and Sun front-pages on Thursday, the clearest thing about Cameron's stance was more than he was opposing Merkel's plan, then what he would exactly do going forward. Yet after press headlines showing a sympathetic attitude to refugees entertaining to UK, the government then announced a plan.
I also don't believe that Merkel's policy will see far more people die. I've said previously on hear that I think people are going to make the journey to Europe regardless of what happens. And if we do not offer some kind of settlement to those who have made the journey, what do we do with them? Put them back in camps? It's far better to look to offer refugees settlement hear in Europe for those that are hear, and to try and divisive a long-term plan to not only improve camp conditions in the Middle East, but how refugees will be able to leave those camps.
These are my genuine opinions. If you want to believe I'm playing politics, then you are more than welcome to.
I'm also not denigrating what has been done. I am happy we have given aid, and had refugees come here. My point is merely that these things do not mean we do not have a responsibility to do more, and that we should do more.
Comments
Being aware of Schengen isn't a sign of being calculated/cunning, just being vaguely intelligent.
The West is masochistic over intervention. When we intervene a lot (Iraq), it's our fault. When we intervene a little (Libya) it's our fault. When we do nothing (Syria), it's our fault.
Personally, I blame ISIS. But there we are.
1) the problem of the refugees in Europe, and where to settle them.
2) the potential problem of further refugees coming to Europe.
3) the problem of refugees in camps in Lebanon, Jordan etc, and helping them get out of those camps at some point so they can lead a normal life.
4) the internal Civil War in Syria which has led to this crisis - in the long-term we need to decide how to make Syria as habitable, and safe as possible if we want to quell further migration.
That's a good start. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are supporting allowing many migrants in with minimal checks (and such checks are difficult with people already on the move). So what are possible downsides of this on the problems you mention:
1) We settle the current migrants, but that only encourages more, and there is more suffering and the people traffickers get richer.
2) It will encourage more migrants to come. Result as per 1) above. Worse, economic migrants feel emboldened.
3) It does nothing for the camps, except for possibly reducing the numbers slightly, at a cost of spreading the misery and making it harder to help the people suffering.
4) It does nothing for the internal civil war.
As an aside, there is another potential but remote consequence: that other barbaric regimes might use it as an excuse for ethnic cleansing: "we don't want them, but we can't kill them. But Europe will take them."
I cannot see how it does any good, except salving a few consciences.
We had already accepted Syrian refugees before this week so the principle of taking them in was established
This week has been about the scale of influx and how they can be accommodated, it's a numbers game.
The UK has said it will take more in but from source in the camps not from Europe
Germany has to tidy its own mess up and stop griping.
Firstly, on the refugees in Europe I'd look to how many are here, and how many are projected to come. An EU border control and security would be set-up to vet those coming, and after that - those who were Syrian refugees would be automatically granted asylum. For the European countries willingly, quotas would be set-up depending on their capacity to accept refugees.
I think European leaders should then work towards the futures of those in camps - ensuring that education, health-care and good conditions for the refugees in the Middle East in the short-term. In the longer term, Europe's leaders need to look at how these refugees can leave camps, and go about their lives. I would look for the EU to engage with other Middle Eastern countries, and look at the possibility of housing those refugees in the Middle East, with refugee projects set-up to ensure that they could access housing, jobs, and education in their new countries as well as be integrated into society.
In the long, long term I think Europe's leaders need to bit the the bullet and back Assad as the lesser evil, and attempt from their to restore some stability to Syria.
And this isn't Germany's mess. Indeed Germany knows that the level of refugees coming to Europe means one country will not be able to house them all.
But there is an issue you are forgetting: the Russians, and especially the Iranians, are already backing Assad, and have his ear, if not pulling his strings. They already have leverage; to beat that leverage, we would have to offer things which I'm not sure you'd agree with. He'd play the three sides off against each other.
Assad's as much a problem as IS. The only solution is a post-Assad Syria run by someone else in the regime.
It's a mess; backing Assad would only make it messier, both morally and practically.
'thanks a bunch'
On (1. and (2. the trouble is, we are at the point where more are going to come anyway. As I said before, the only way to really stop them coming is to affect the situation in Syria. Economic migrants already feel emboldened, we just have to sort refugees from pure economic migrants.
I don't see why trying to get those out of camps, would make their lives harder. I think you may be mistaken that I think Merkel's policy is a solution to those in camps - I don't. I think that requires a separate policy. Likewise, with (4. which I believe again requires a different strategy that is more long-term. I elaborated a bit more to @MikeK.
http://labourlist.org/2015/09/trsitram-hunt-there-will-be-no-labour-split/
BOO
On Schengen I doubt your average joe in the UK would know what Schengen is.
On the West, we just shouldn't have gone in. Arguably, invading Iraq indirectly led to ISIS.
EDIT: And the debate is has only today moved to numbers. Prior to that, it was whether we would take in any refugees.
On Schengen: the average Briton isn't trying to emigrate. It's not a valid comparison.
On Iraq: perhaps. The Arab Spring played a role. Not intervening to topple Assad could also be considered a failure. Hindsight's always 20/20.
Edited extra bit: Ms. Apocalypse, as I understand it, Germany's expecting 800,000 this year and has no upper limit on the number it will accept.
Merkel isn't trying to create an EU plan. She's determined Germany's policy and is trying to use that to force the rest of the EU to take migrants her own country has allowed in. It's not solidarity she seeks but German dominance.
It's obvious the nearer you get the migrants to source, before they've had a chance to travel too far and traffickers have got their greedy mitts on them, the easier verification is. Therefore verify them in the camps.
And the more we accept, the more will come. Despite the doom and gloom merchants in Labour, the UK is a good country to live (although imperfect), which is why so many people want to come here.
What is the upper limit you think the UK can take? (Apologies if you've mentioned this before).
Admitting some (particularly Christians and Yazidis) direct from the camps is something I support, but Kurds who have been in Turkey for years ? Not so keen.
As often with David's Saturday pieces, for which, as always, many thanks, I'm far from being in agreement.
I do agree we need to resolve the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to resolve Libya and Yemen and that can't be done by the EU or even the West acting in isolation. Regional problems require global solutions (or something like that).
Were I David Cameron, I would be proposing an international conference, sponsored by the UN, to resolve the political, economic and humanitarian aspects of the Syrian crisis and everyone would be invited (yes, everyone, including IS because you talk to the power, not to the people).
The Security Council members of the UN should take the line that there will be a solution and a political agreement for a post-Assad Syria and once that has been achieved, the world will do everything to a) rebuild and b) repatriate. Ultimately, the aim must be for Syrians to return to a peaceful Syria (and I suspect that's what most Syrians want as well).
There's no point however simply having another talking shop - the velvet glove has to have an iron fist and that means a UN resolution authorising force to stop the fighting if need be and that should involve ALL UN Security Council members including Russia and China. I'd have no problem with Chinese, Indian, Brazilian or whoever troops enforcing a UN-brokered ceasefire on the streets of Damascus and perhaps we can persuade the Gulf States to a) help fund the UN effort and b) help fund the refugee repatriation.
I've long thought IS (and groups like it) thrive in the climate of fear, poverty and oppression. Replace that with hope, prosperity and tolerance and IS will wither and die.
Finally, if peace means the partitioning of Syria, so be it. It's what happened in Yugoslavia and perhaps the establishment of a truly independent Kurdish state may not be the worst outcome either.
The key thing is that the Russians want Assad to stay. The Iranians might well be willing to consider a solution without him (he's a Sunni, after all, insofar as he is anything). If we want to shape a post-war, post-Assad Syria, then unfortunately now we do need to trump them. I don't *like* that idea, but it's a bit like growing old - not great, until you consider the alternatives.
The Kurds are going to be a perennial problem in the region whatever we do, and it is worth remembering they are also under grave threat from ISIS at the moment. What that solution could be, I must confess I don't know.
The whole situation is a mess, I agree, and a human catastrophe and everything else. The key problem is, that without Western intervention in some form it is certain to get worse. With it, there is a chance it might be mitigated, even at a high moral cost. Two proverbs: 'Choose the lesser of two evils', and 'take a risk, against a certainty.' That's what I was thinking of when I wrote my post.
I will finish by quoting the words of Richard Overy: 'The irony of the Second World War was that the Allies included a regime quite as brutal and indifferent to human rights as the Nazis they were fighting.' Yet, even allowing for the dreadful evils of Communism, life in Poland was considerably better under the Russians than it was under the Nazis. That's the kind of choice we are now faced with again.
There are millions in desperate situations around Syria, some will always risk making the journey to Europe. How could making the end state of that journey less risky not encourage more? A few % more would add up to tens or hundreds of thousands more.
Now, if that Is to happen it's too late to prevent given Germany's call so we have to deal with that, but just because many were coming anyway doesn't mean actions taken now cannot exacerbate it considerably, and may well have just done so.
The fact that most of the refugees are not at the moment are not migrants as Mr H points out is irrelevant. The actual numbers are indeterminate and the potential numbers are set by those who have not yet even become refugees.
I'm not convinced that negotiations with people who probably still genuinely believe given the current military situation that they are on the brink of refounding the great medieval caliphates of Cairo and Baghdad is going to achieve anything.
As David (Herdson) says: the vast majority of Syrians have stayed in the countries bordering Syria. It is there we should focus our efforts, as well as doing what we can to end the war in Syria and stabilise the country itself.
Then they can return home.
In the meantime, we need to protect people from both IS and Assad.
No one has said that no Middle Eastern country is doing anything. We have all been talking about Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan and how we need to support and help them. What we have been criticising is the wealthy Arab states - many of whom have been directly involved in propagating the Civil War in Syria and who have refused to do anything towards alleviating the suffering of the refugees. To use that as an attack on other posters is frankly bizarre. Mind you that kind of covers much of your posting on this subject which has been incoherent and infantile at best.
Many of us are making carefully considered appraisals of how best we can help those fleeing persecution without encouraging yet more dangerous migration across the Mediterranean. Meanwhile you are still thrashing around with the 'something must be done' brigade, pushing non-solutions that will just result in thousands more people dying unnecessarily. It is pretty shameful.
I wouldn't have had you down as a Sun reader though.
I'm sure most will settle nearby, that's not the question, the question is whether making a journey easier encourages more to make that journey. I would say the answer is unequivocally, yes. The next question is to what degree, as it may not be as large an increase resulting as feared, and if so if the additional amount saved outweighs the human cost of those still lost on the journey and the societal costs inthe host nations, as cold a calculation as that is. It might be so, it might not.
But enough about this depressing quagmire. A good day to all.
http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/housing-waiting-list
@Richard_Tyndall My arguments are not dishonest, nor are they strawman arguments. And yes, people have said that Middle Eastern states are not doing anything, and are not doing their fair share. Some, such as @DaemonBarber have talked about the contribution of Middle Eastern countries, as has @Sunil_Prasannan. But many others have not, and indeed have made arguments that why should Europe being housing these refugees instead of the Middle East.
As I said before, this 'do something' argument that you have reiterated is, if anything a false argument. Because at this stage most people - including Cameron do believe that we should be doing something to help solve the crisis. And many have not made carefully considered appraisals. Prior to Thursday, many on PB were actively hostile to the idea that any of this was even the UK's problem, and thought that our aid contribution was enough. It has only been since Cameron's announcement, when many have now softened to the idea of accepting refugees, and now the argument has become about numbers, and methods. But many on PB have also actively demonised this refugees, and have had very little sympathy for their cause. That is pretty shameful.
My assessment on other posters is response to others criticise the vein of my arguments as virtual-signalling, and so on. You cannot have a situation where one side is allowed to depict arguments as virtual-signalling, mocking them, dismissing them and then not expect a response back. Suddenly, now that has happened my arguments are 'infantile' and 'incoherent'. No, I reject that assessment of my arguments completely. If anything, I would say many of the arguments criticising refugees have been infantile.
Colour's not important. About thirty years ago, we actually took in a young Nigerian lad who was on a work experience month where I worked. We didn't charge him rent and he was no problem at all - apart from the fact it took me a week to stop him calling me 'sir'. But when you share your house with anyone, even relatives, it is an imposition.
When I go back to Boston, I see there's resentment of white Christian Poles and Lithuanians because they're different. And also that they overload the schools and services locally. It's probably the same feeling of imposition I had in sharing the house with someone else. Yet they are 'racist'.
But taking in different cultures completely will cause problems even if they're not all head-hunting IS people. We have to accept this will happen and not pretend it's due to innate badness/selfishness on the part of the locals.
We can't all be virtue-signalling Guardian readers.
*) What do IS want?
*) What does Assad want?
*) What do the Kurds want?
*) What do we, the west, want?
*) What does Iran want?
*) What does Russia want?
*) What do neighbouring countries want?
For all those, how much would they compromise in order to come to an accommodation? As you say, in the case of IS, probably not much. Assad would probably want all of Syria back as well. And what do the Kurds want? They almost certainly would be safer in their own state, but can - and should - they be granted that? (*)
Doing that, it's hard to see how an agreement can be reached, although it may be possible. But sadly that'd be the UN's job, and they're hopeless in this sort of situation.
(*) And how would Turkey react to a Kurdish state? The case of the Turkish-Greek population swaps in 1923 is worth studying:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey
As of the end of Q2 2015 the UK had accepted 5102 Syrian refugees and asylum seekers since the start of the civil war.
[Edit: link not working properly. Will try and find another.]
It is not enough but it is certainly not the couple of hundred claimed by the twitterati.
This last bit, I don't think we even need to guess. Turkey has been fighting a war against the Kurds for however many years (I don't have a figure) and when the idea of a new state of Kurdistan was first seriously mooted in (correct me if I'm wrong) the aftermath of the Gulf War, they went apeshit and made sure that the de facto independent Kurdish provinces of Iraq were confined to Iraq.
I think the only question surrounding a Kurdish state would be whether or not the ink on its founding articles had time to dry before Turkey declared war on it. I know there are reports of a thaw, but I think quite a lot of them are wishful thinking. If Turkey were genuinely willing to consider a united country of Kurdistan, it wouldn't have been neutral for so long in the war against ISIS.
Fantastic realistic article, David.
Cameron - who I have spent almost my entire PB life attacking and criticising - has come up with what appears to be a very measured and responsible plan, one that will help many of those in need whilst making it clear that we will not encourage the migrants crossing the Mediterranean. His plan will hopefully save lives. Yours and Merkel's will just kill even more people.
Merkels decision will only now result in many more coming and many more dying. Those who wish to harm us will also see this as a free pass into the countries previously they may well have had difficulty entering. As for what happens in Europe Merkel does not decide what we do and neither does the EU when they decided to have open borders and then stand there will open arms for all and sundry. We opted out and a go thing too.
As for compassion the arguments are equally horse manure. This country has more compassion and offered more protection to the persecuted than most of the EU put together over many years and still does to this day without having to broadcast the fact. The left wing may not like that fact but it does not alter the fact.
As you say, it is now summer and the 'thaw' appears to be well and truly over, to the detriment of civilians on both sides.
As an aside, Kurdish nationalism has been around for a couple of hundred years, and I *think* the serious potential of a Kurdish state predated GW1 - which was why Sadaam had been repressing them before thaat war. The PUK in Turkey is also a 1970s invention, I think.
(Note, IANAE, but read up on these problems when I inherited family in Turkey).
I'm not disagreeing with Cameron's policy on taking migrants from camps.
The upper limit? I think 15,000.
The 800,000 figure for Germany was first mentioned weeks ago by the German minister for immigration. He said he expected that was the number of people he expected to arrive in Germany, not that germany wanted to take that number, and that it was going to be a massive problem for Germany to cope with such an influx.
The fellow who paid people smugglers to get him an his family to Greece and whose wife and children drowned on the second attempt, the first ended when the boat sank, was not fleeing from death and persecution. He and his family had been living safely in a flat in Istanbul. Anyone over here who treated their children with such a reckless disregard for their safety would be looking at a long gaol sentence.
If the civil war in Syria stopped tomorrow and the people in the camps returned home to safety it would not stop the migration crisis. We may be fixated about Syrians this week but the boats that were/are setting off from North Africa are full of young men from Somalia, Eritrea and other places in West and East sub-saharan Africa. People from Syria are just a small part of the problem.
And on that happy note I am off to buy prawns for my cat - just can't get decent oysters round here.
Where I would agree is in the need to build an international consensus, and there there is some hope if the Assad-Ba'ath solution is to be adopted. Russia might be brought on board - though there would remain the complication of sanctions re Ukraine - and most Middle East countries would presumably prefer a stable Syria to a chaotic one. If Assad is personally beyond the pale then some form of exile and immunity from criminal charges could be arranged. Again, very far from ideal but needs must in such circumstances. St Helena has precedent.
As for the Kurds, yes, it's a tricky one as that too has implications for Turkey and Iran (and Iraq, though the issue's largely resolved there). An autonomous region may be one possibility if some meaningful guarantee can be put in place.
I also agree that you are right that unless there is the means to enforce a settlement then it won't count for anything. The question is, are there those means? Would China, India, Brazil or whoever be willing to contribute troops to Syria (as an aside, I'm not convinced that Chinese troops would be a good idea)? How many British lives should be laid on the line to secure peace? It's all very well passing a UNSCR to 'enforce' a ceasefire but how is that practically done? Bosnia-Serbia suggests one option but the scale needed in Syria would be of a different order of magnitude.
In many ways, I don't think we're that far apart in objectives. I just don't think your solution is viable. You do - which is why you don't think my option should be supported as the least, because it then wouldn't be. Like I said in the leader, it's on calls like these that statesmen earn their cash.
Maybe you ought to realise you can disagree with someone without restorting to personal attacks.
If Germany was spending the same as us on foreign aid that is a further $14bn that could be spent on aid to those in need near Syria.
But I suppose not honouring your commitments is nothing compared to saying everyone is welcome - but without giving visas or safe transport so people have to cross on rafts/through Hungary first.
Agree with Cameron's policy of helping local camps (though I think the posts that say that Syrian refugees have "decided" to stay there underestimate the difficulties and risks in getting further), but we also need to address the problem of the refugees already in Europe. Merkel's policy seems to me to reflect the right generous spirit and our reluctance to help address that aspect is wrong.
On Syria, while I'd prefer to see Assad win to ISIS or the current enduring slaughter, I don't think we should get actively involved in choosing one tyrant over another. We should however refrain from trying to undermine Assad and encourage our partners to take the same policy.
15,000 in total? Per month? Per year?
Stop the wars. Help the millions of refugees in countries close to their homelands. Persuade all nations to help with both of those - especially those in the region where conflict is occurring. Sort out a coherent EU response to the refugees already on their way. Look after the human beings whereever they are. Take some of them, especially orphan children. Work to reduce hostility to the west. Detect terrorists. Convince people that "foreign" or "different" is not the same as "evil" or "threatening" or, God help us "less deserving", "of less worth" or "not entitled to human rights". Figure out how to help rebuild countries without being labelled as interfering. Come up with some sort of UN strategy for dealing with ISIS and similar groups, who are an existential threat to a lot of UN member states. Prepare for a long haul and millions more people on the move. And try not to give up in despair at how hard this is going to be.
How is Merkel being "generous" by telling people to come to Germany but to make their own way there so they board rafts and pay people smugglers?
And yes you have been making political points. Claiming that Cameron has only changed his mind because of the media and denigrating what is being and has been done whilst at the same time promoting a policy which will actually see far more people die is, to my mind, playing politics.
Fantastic post.
Any assistance that we give to other EU States must be conditional upon stopping further crossings across the Mediterranean.
The Turks didn't like it then and they clearly wouldn't like it now. I had actually forgotten about them bombing the Kurdish positions (thank you @Richard_Tyndall) but it just goes to show that there is very little room to manoeuvre in any of this. Which - to bring me back to my original point - I think eventually we will have to back up the Ba'athist regime, if not Assad himself, to try and restore a semblance of stability to the Middle East from where things can begin to improve.
(Merely 'not trying to undermine [Assad]' would be the worst of all worlds - not hindering ISIS, and not giving us any clout to try and improve things in Syria if and when ISIS are defeated. If we have to do something that is bad, and morally wrong, and repugnant to us all, could we at least have the courage to do it openly?)
It is regular for the process to take *years* for some cases, and 1-2 years for many, which is one reason why we have a constant kerfuffle about women and children being detained at Yarl's Wood and other centres for months or years.
If decisions were made and implemented quickly then that whole detention controversy could not exist. But that system doesn't work either, which is imo why it would be an appalling idea to ship people here in large numbers. We are not capable at present of returning them even if we wanted to.
To me it is like using a system designed for processing individual specimen bonzai trees for the first 10- years of their life to mass produce cabbages, or to use one operating threatre for doing triage when there are 1000 casualties - when a bottle of whisky, a hacksaw and a barrel of tar would save more lives.
I have no idea how one would set up a suitable system in the UK legal context that would be legal delay proof.
btw thanks for the compliment (or exclusion from the un-compliment :-) ) on the previous thread. My biggest problem is starting a conversation then vanishnig half way through.
I still owe you an example of "vitriolic hatred" of landlords and some replies on feminism. For LL try here in the comments. No coincidence that it is at the end of an article of extreme examples.
I genuinely believe that Cameron's change of mind is mainly down to media response - by and large, politicians are incredibly sensitive to issue of immigration and how it will go down in the public mood - and newspapers are often seen as litmus test of the public mood. Prior to the Mail and Sun front-pages on Thursday, the clearest thing about Cameron's stance was more than he was opposing Merkel's plan, then what he would exactly do going forward. Yet after press headlines showing a sympathetic attitude to refugees entertaining to UK, the government then announced a plan.
I also don't believe that Merkel's policy will see far more people die. I've said previously on hear that I think people are going to make the journey to Europe regardless of what happens. And if we do not offer some kind of settlement to those who have made the journey, what do we do with them? Put them back in camps? It's far better to look to offer refugees settlement hear in Europe for those that are hear, and to try and divisive a long-term plan to not only improve camp conditions in the Middle East, but how refugees will be able to leave those camps.
These are my genuine opinions. If you want to believe I'm playing politics, then you are more than welcome to.
I'm also not denigrating what has been done. I am happy we have given aid, and had refugees come here. My point is merely that these things do not mean we do not have a responsibility to do more, and that we should do more.