***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
==========================================================
How's about this for a question: Russia has invaded Norway and thousands are fleeing across the North Sea. Let's say, 10,000 or so. They have left their lives behind and lost all their assets, property and money.
We turn them back, right? We let them drown, right? We send the gunships out to protect our coast from them, right?
Right?
No. Didn't think so. I wonder why.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 8 Sep 15 at 01:27
|
>> No. Didn't think so. I wonder why.
>>
I think in a way it's natural. Few people see issues or potential issues from Norway. The ME is an unstable area. People also naturally feel closer to those that are more like them, the less like them the more wary they are.
|
>>
>> >> No. Didn't think so. I wonder why.
>> >>
>> People also naturally feel closer to those that
>> are more like them, the less like them the more wary they are.
>>
Of course that's right, sooty. But is it good enough reason to let the "others" drown in the sea? Some people on here seem to be saying that.
|
|
Hmm I'm not sure they are. More it's other people's to sort out. I suppose you could say it's one and the same.
|
>> Of course that's right, sooty. But is it good enough reason to let the "others"
>> drown in the sea? Some people on here seem to be saying that.
>>
I think that is an unpleasant twist that has come from you, because other people don't agree with your viewpoint.
I cannot believe anyone on here would willing 'let others drown in the sea'. When I saw that picture of a child drowned I felt truly awful and hurriedly moved to another news item.
I have a 3 year old child myself and you immediately think of them... and how awful it would be if you had to up roots and suddenly move.
However, all of that changes nothing, the dead child changes nothing... the bigger picture needs to be looked at by our leaders and dealt with sensibly.. and opening our doors isn't the answer.
|
However, all of that changes nothing, the dead child changes nothing... the bigger picture needs
>> to be looked at by our leaders and dealt with sensibly.. and opening our doors
>> isn't the answer.
>>
But we have the here and now to sort out. Long term building and supporting other countries is a good thing. However they are in the boarders of the eu now, what should we do now is the issue at hand.
|
>> But we have the here and now to sort out. Long term building and supporting
>> other countries is a good thing. However they are in the boarders of the eu
>> now, what should we do now is the issue at hand.
>>
True, but opening the doors encourages loads more.
G8 types needs to negotiate an Arab coalition (like Kuwait) and go in on the ground, kick ISIS into touch and leave a Muslim/Arab peace force there until the country is back on its feet... and if Assad goes in the meantime, so be it.
|
> G8 types needs to negotiate an Arab coalition (like Kuwait) and go in on the
>> ground, kick ISIS into touch and leave a Muslim/Arab peace force there until the country
>> is back on its feet... and if Assad goes in the meantime, so be it.
In an ideal world maybe. But if that's the only answer then there is no answer. They've neither the will or capability to do anything like that.
|
I think that they DO have the capacity, but since ISIS are a Sunni based organisation, then most of the Gulf states, and Saudi will have a basic sympathy with their fight against other strains of Islam.
Last edited by: neiltoo on Fri 4 Sep 15 at 11:52
|
>> In an ideal world maybe. But if that's the only answer then there is no
>> answer. They've neither the will or capability to do anything like that.
>>
Oh they have the capability. They managed it sharply enough when Saddam took over Kuwait and the oil looked like drying up.
Trouble is, we are one of the few countries who militarily will put our money where our mouth is ..but .. we have become minnows.
If the US doesn't bother, we can't.
We have a current US president who will not sanction anything like this, so it won't happen.
It could happen though.
|
Oh they have the capability.
Trust me they haven't, on paper it may look okay. Not in reality though.
>> We have a current US president who will not sanction anything like this, so it won't happen.
>>
>> It could happen though.
>>
Precisely it would have to be lead by the west. The ME militaries can tag along but no way could they do what you suggested on their own.
|
>>They managed it sharply enough when Saddam took over Kuwait
I agree entirely on your comments about oil as a motivation, but there is a difference.
Going into country A to kick out the invading force from country B is a simple concept.
Going into country A to attack a bunch of country A's own citizens because you don't approve of their behaviour is quite another thing - even if you are trying to do the right thing.
Bear in mind also that countries with disciplined and constant borders is a western idea. In times past a people's lands was simply where they were and what they could hold onto and borders were always floating and conflicted.
It engenders quite a different underlying attitude to such things.
|
I do not particularly agree with the Mercy Corp, especially in this article. But nonetheless it does give an interesting view of the numbers & geography involved and is worth reading.
www.mercycorps.org/articles/turkey-iraq-jordan-lebanon-syria/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisis
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 4 Sep 15 at 12:34
|
>>Going into country A to attack a bunch of country A's own citizens because you don't
>>approve of their behaviour is quite another thing - even if you are trying to do the right
thing.
Really? I think we've intervened pretty successfully in civil wars in Europe over the last 30 years, haven't we?
|
>>Really? I think we've intervened pretty successfully in civil wars in Europe over the last 30 years, haven't we?
Where did I say anything about success or otherwise? [Although I would be interested in your thoughts as to where you believe it to have been successful and why].
I said that they were different things. Do you believe them to be the same?
|
>>I said that they were different things. Do you believe them to be the same?
Apologies; I thought you were implying that stopping civil wars was less acceptable than kicking out an invader.
I think intervention in the Balkans around the turn of the millennium was successful, as there is continuing peace there - and indeed prosperity.
>>Bear in mind also that countries with disciplined and constant borders is a western idea.
I agree with you about the concept, that's why the whole Ukraine annexation isn't as shocking as we Brits think, but I'm not sure I agree it's a western idea. I'd say it's a very British idea (or, indeed an island idea). As we are surrounded by the sea our borders have not been particularly fluid. That said, we lost Eire less than 100 years ago and who knows what will happen with Scotland - which only joined us in 1603 - which indeed was before our own civil war in 1640. And indeed we lost the Channel Islands to Hitler.
But elsewhere in the Western World: Germany was only created in 1871. Italy 1861. Germany only reunified in 1990. The Alsatians have changed sides more often than they can remember. And the Balkan states have been chopped up as recently as fifteen years ago (maybe more recently). Newfoundland only joined Canada in 1949.
|
>> I think intervention in the Balkans around the turn of the millennium was successful, as
>> there is continuing peace there - and indeed prosperity.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave on Thu 3 Sep 2015 at 10:06.
If you think that there is "prosperity" in places like Croatia even (let alone Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia and Macedonia) just because they're in the EU, you are very much mistaken.
In some places, things are creeping in the right direction. In others, there's stagnation and even open hostility (unreported) in some places.
|
>>I said that they were different things. Do you believe them to be the same?
>
>Apologies; I thought you were implying that stopping civil wars was less acceptable than
>kicking out an invader.
Ah, no. My point was that one cannot be used as a yard stick, metric, or model for the other.
Success at one (repelling invaders) is considerably less problematic than trying to sort out incumbents.
|
>> >> In an ideal world maybe. But if that's the only answer then there is
>> no
>> >> answer. They've neither the will or capability to do anything like that.
>> >>
>> Oh they have the capability. They managed it sharply enough when Saddam took over Kuwait
>> and the oil looked like drying up.
Except of course they didnt manage to complete it and what we have now is the result of that failure. The yanks have failed EVERYWHERE they have intervened since 1945.
|
>> Except of course they didnt manage to complete it and what we have now is
>> the result of that failure. The yanks have failed EVERYWHERE they have intervened since 1945.
Depends what your definition of failure is.
Was Yugoslavia a failure? Should the West have left it alone?
I think the West should have intervened in Rwanda.
|
>> >> Except of course they didnt manage to complete it and what we have now
>> is
>> >> the result of that failure. The yanks have failed EVERYWHERE they have intervened since
>> 1945.
>>
>> Depends what your definition of failure is.
Well they haven't left peaceful prosperous democracy behind them have they. They haven't left stability and lack of future threat behind either. In fact they have left past, present and future chaos death and misery behind. Thats a failure in my book. The yanks never have an end game, a follow on strategy. Not surprised really from a country that defends its right to arm schoolchildren killing nutters.
>> Was Yugoslavia a failure? Should the West have left it alone?
I thought we did well there, but someone who knows the ground better then me has said not. Time will tell.
>> I think the West should have intervened in Rwanda.
Funnily enough that sorted itself out without intervention.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 4 Sep 15 at 13:34
|
>> >> Was Yugoslavia a failure? Should the West have left it alone?
>>
>> I thought we did well there, but someone who knows the ground better then me
>> has said not. Time will tell.
>>
>> >> I think the West should have intervened in Rwanda.
>>
>> Funnily enough that sorted itself out without intervention.
>>
Well, I think that:
- leaving Yugoslavia alone would have meant an utter bloodbath (obviously more so than what had already happened).
- leaving Rwanda alone was immoral and the human tragedy in the middle can not be seen simply as 'sorted itself out without intervention'.
- leaving ISIS to do what it does is immoral and long term foolish.
|
.
>>
>> Except of course they didnt manage to complete it and what we have now is
>> the result of that failure. The yanks have failed EVERYWHERE they have intervened since 1945.
>>
>>
South Korea turned out OK... The Berlin Wall and Communism collapsed.. Three rather major successes.
|
>>G8 types needs to negotiate an Arab coalition (like Kuwait) and go in on the ground, kick ISIS into touch
If one goes into a country to sort out an invasion situation, then its all very simple in concept, although perhaps not in execution. Good people easily identified as rightfully trying to hold onto their country and bad as those trying to take a country which is not theirs.
All very easy to understand; one goes in and repeatedly slaps the invaders until they leave.
Black & white - my country, not my country.
Now, try to separate people by belief. Not black & white. Not even a matter of Muslims on one side and non-Muslims on another, anymore than Northern Ireland was Christians on one side and non-Christians on the other.
No one person has any more right to their views than any other. They're not different races or different nationalities, they are just groups of people who don't agree on everything, but there isn't even any uniformity or clarity in scope or range of their disagreement.
And what is worse is that there are not two views. There is every shade of grey that you can conceive of. Some agree with this method but not with that, this belief but not that one, this method under this circumstance but not under that, this behaviour is evil, that behaviour is a little bad etc. etc.
The people running away are Muslim. As are the people that they are running from. They have some similar beliefs and some different, ditto standards, behaviours, emotions.
Consider the current Labour leadership election. There is no common or clear split between the potential leaders. Say you wanted to go and beat up on all Corbyn supporters. There is no clear split between Corbyn believers and non Corbyn believers. Shades of grey.
How on earth does one "kick ISIS into touch"?
If it was that easy, then brilliant. But its not. Nor can it ever be.
I have various moral objections to going in in force, but they are as nothing compared to the practical impossibility of achieving anything.
|
Top post Mark.
>> No one person has any more right to their views than any other. They're not
>> different races or different nationalities
The only bit of analysis I'd cavil over is the above. Having worked with people from both sides of the sectarian divide in NI they certainly identify as different nationalities!! I suspect the same applies in spades in Syria. People identify by clan whether Druze, Allouite or whatever first and only secondarily as Syrian. The country in it's current form arises from a French mandate in the inter war years so it's not even got the history the Irish at least have on their side.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 7 Sep 15 at 21:15
|
|
ok so complete the story properly though. Many of the Norwegians dont want to stay in the UK and for whatever reason decide to go to Dubai, Saudi Arabia (they have lots of money etc etc) they would be welcomed with open arms wouldn't they..................
|
There are 6 billion people in the world. I'd guess that at least 4 bn, quite probably 5bn of them would be better off in Europe than wherever they are. And the UK is the no. 1 favoured place for them to come, closely followed by Germany. At what point do we say 'enough'? Syria has a population of 23 million; how many is too many? I think even the most welcoming Brit would say we couldn't cope with that number.
The problem we have today that we didn't have 70 years ago is that the would-be migrants have enough money to pay (people traffickers) to get here; then they didn't.
I refuse to believe, though, that this is the 'worst ever' refugee crisis. Surely that was 1945.
|
>> Right?
>>
>> No. Didn't think so. I wonder why.
Because they have lost all their money, and haven't spent it on illegal economic migration after making it to a place of safety.
|
So Greece should take them all.
I missed the bit where Greece was suddenly a tearaway economic success capable of this feat.
|
>> I missed the bit where Greece was suddenly a tearaway economic success capable of this
>> feat.
>>
I thought Greece was part of an economic club, one that each player helps the other one out?
|
Some countries are doing nothing:-
"The six Gulf countries - Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain - have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.
Other high income countries including Russia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea have also offered zero resettlement places".
|
>> I thought Greece was part of an economic club, one that each player helps the
>> other one out?
>>
Well precisely. Which is why we should take a share of refugees. Why are you saying otherwise?
|
>> Well precisely. Which is why we should take a share of refugees. Why are you
>> saying otherwise?
>>
I think that:
A, We should only have loose ties with the EU for trading purposes only (as was originally agreed)
B, We more than pay our way with money into the kitty
C, When it's come to providing military, we are at the forefront, every time... and many others provide little or nothing, so these things should be evened out
D, We are a very heavily populated country, so the lions share can quite legitimately go elsewhere
E, The current rules are the receiving country should deal, so if we provided help with that either financially or with people to staff reception centres or whatever, then so be it... but not to have a free for all here.
F, We should as the EU negotiate with the US and others within the G8 to tackle the problem at source
|
>> C, When it's come to providing military, we are at the forefront, every time... and
>> many others provide little or nothing, so these things should be evened out
You mean like in Iraq? The French kept out of that one because Chirac thought that (a) Saddam was no great threat to the west and (b) his removal would result in Sunni/Shia conflict and potential bloodbath.
He was bang on on the second count and almost certainly right on the first.
Germany, then under Schroeder, was in same camp.
|
>> You mean like in Iraq? The French kept out of that one because Chirac thought
>> that (a) Saddam was no great threat to the west and (b) his removal would
>> result in Sunni/Shia conflict and potential bloodbath.
You are entirely missing the point.
If we as a country stump up militarily when a coalition of the great and good think it necessary (even if history were in theory to say that in hindsight it didn't work), then it is entirely fair that those that choose not to, step up in other ways.
|
>> If we as a country stump up militarily when a coalition of the great and
>> good think it necessary (even if history were in theory to say that in hindsight
>> it didn't work), then it is entirely fair that those that choose not to, step
>> up in other ways.
With respect I think it's you who is missing the point.
There was no coalition of the great and good over Iraq 2. If there had been the UN resolutions would have explicitly authorised action, as was case in Iraq 1.
Dubya was determined to displace Saddam. Blair, in an act which did him, his party and the whole of the UK a massive disservice 'cooked' the evidence to support Bush. The EU 'club' were pretty much against. The coming of ISIL is a direct consequence of Iraq 2. On that basis we bloomin well should be stumping up for refugees.
|
>> With respect I think it's you who is missing the point.
You missed the point by a country mile.
My point was about this country stepping up to the plate in some areas (military), so it wouldn't hurt others doing so in other areas (refugees).
You've gone off on a tangent about the pros/cons of the Irag war.
|
>> You've gone off on a tangent about the pros/cons of the Irag war.
The current issue is refugees from Syria which it's reasonable to mix with Iraq as 'Levant'. Where in that area have we step up to plate (military) to extent we can sit on our laurels and let others absorb the refugees?
Even if you 'net off' other military action such as Sierra Leone why can we sit on our soldiering laurels and ignore refugees from the Levant?
|
|
I think the arguement is more along the lines of we've done x and you've chipped in little, so you cover y while we chip in little. quid pro quo. The two need not be directly related.
|
>> I think the arguement is more along the lines of we've done x and you've
>> chipped in little, so you cover y while we chip in little. quid pro quo.
>> The two need not be directly related.
I understand that but I'm still stuck as to why x counts if it was (a) in a different part of the world or (b) created the problem y seeks to mitigate.
|
>> but I'm still stuck as to why x counts if it was
>> (a) in a different part of the world or (b) created the problem y seeks
>> to mitigate.
>>
Because for (a) there was and is a coalition of democratic Western states that agree to do something. That includes the EU.
Some within the EU do a lot....e.g. Poland, we do a huge amount... some do very little, so that is why I come out with this angle.
It matters not where the problem is, just that some are willing to step up to the plate and help.
As for (b) that is a considerably more complicated subject and some of what you say is with the benefit of hindsight.
|
>> I think the arguement is more along the lines of we've done x and you've
>> chipped in little, so you cover y while we chip in little. quid pro quo.
>> The two need not be directly related.
Thank you
|
"He was bang on on the second count and almost certainly right on the first. "
As was, AFAIK, N Farage.
|
>> When it's come to providing military, we are at the forefront, every time... and
>> many others provide little or nothing, so these things should be evened out
b***** cheese eating surrender monkeys, never contribute a thing.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34173983
|
>> So Greece should take them all.
>>
>> I missed the bit where Greece was suddenly a tearaway economic success capable of this
>> feat.
And you missed turkey along the way as well. And you conveniently missed the difference between illegal economic migration and refugees.
Lets clarify it, if Russia hadn't invaded Norway, but they all started coming ashore in the UK because they were greedy how does that change your argument?
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 4 Sep 15 at 13:39
|
|
One also has to wonder where they were fleeing from to arrive in Hungary, which is not renown for its proximity to ISIS killers and fighters.
|
>> One also has to wonder where they were fleeing from to arrive in Hungary, which
>> is not renown for its proximity to ISIS killers and fighters.
>>
Agreed.
Though I do wonder why Hungary has taken it upon itself to deal with it as they have, when they could be facilitating people to go elsewhere and having a much smaller problem.
Technically they are right, it's just that they are in the middle of the journey and could have considerably less hassle.
|
>> And you missed turkey along the way as well. And you conveniently missed the difference
>> between illegal economic migration and refugees.
And you missed the bit where it's evident that a lot of these refugees are clearly not really safe in Turkey due to their ethnicity, and the bit where I acknowledge that there are indeed likely to be economic chancers amongst the masses and that can't be ignored, but that the vast majority from Syria are likely under enormous threat from ISIS.
|
>> So Greece should take them all.
>>
>> I missed the bit where Greece was suddenly a tearaway economic success capable of this
>> feat.
Immigration is positive for the economy, isn't it? Two birds with one stone.
|
>> Immigration is positive for the economy, isn't it?
>>
In most cases yes, in the case of the dispossessed turning up in an economic basket case, probably not so much in the short term.
|
>> In most cases yes, in the case of the dispossessed turning up in an economic
>> basket case, probably not so much in the short term.
I was being slightly mischievous as you must know. There is a soundbite for every position on this issue.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 6 Sep 15 at 03:42
|
|
Indeed. Hard to spot implication in the written medium sometimes.
|
Only tangentially apropos, but there is a thread of argument in relation to the 'refugee' problem that UK is somehow more racist than the rest of Europe ... and there is undeniably a lot of what probably everybody here would call racism, here in the Britain.
There's the thuggish kind of course, but also the slightly more genteel sort I detect in my local pubs in this almost all-white locality - I suspect a lot of people have moved out here from Watford, Harrow, Uxbridge etc. because it is less "cosmopolitan" - often on basis of the make-up of the school intakes, a reason I have heard quite often.
But - having spent some work-time in Hungary, Czechia, Italy and Greece for example I'd say there is more racism in those countries, unless it is just that they are more open about their feelings. In central Europe especially, people generally also seem very aware of nationality/religion/ethnicity in a way that people here are not.
I have always thought that Britain is the epitome of moderateness, from weather through politics to culture, despite individual deviation from the mean.
|
|
We really must stop agreeing like this. I made the point about Hungarian racism above. You ought to see/hear it in Russia though. Mindblowing. Not everyone of course, but those who indulge do so loudly, proudly and virulently. And often violently. When I was a student there, I knew black lads from Africa who hadn't left their building in 7 years for fear of beatings/murder.
|
>>So Greece should take them all.
>>I missed the bit where Greece was suddenly a tearaway economic success capable of this feat.
We might be surprised how many fewer migrants there are if the Holy Grail were to be transformed into life in Greece with 10m other Syrians.
|
>> There's the thuggish kind of course, but also the slightly more genteel sort I detect in my local pubs in this almost all-white locality
Heh heh... we are a sly, slimy lot in our way although we see ourselves as models of rectitude. But you're right Manatee, outside a lunatic fringe we aren't virulently and thuggishly racist in the way many east Europeans are. Our racism is moderate like most of our other behaviours, or so we like to think.
|
"we are a sly, slimy lot in our way although we see ourselves as models of rectitude. "
You know journalists, AC, and I know journalists - and few of them would admit that they are as you describe. Chapeau for your honesty, old boy!
;-)
|
>> I know journalists - and few of them would admit that they are as you describe. Chapeau for your honesty, old boy!
;-)
Must be a deliberate misunderstanding to get at hacks. They don't care, their skins are thick. I know you understood I referred not just to hacks, but to 'us' - the British - in general. Chapeau for your insight and lack of chauvinism!
:o}
|
tinyurl.com/nht9org
Sums it up, doesn't it?
|
>> tinyurl.com/nht9org
>>
>> Sums it up, doesn't it?
Not even remotely.
The fact that the words NO WAR are endorsed across Ukraine tells us something about the author's intelligence and knowledge of the world.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 5 Sep 15 at 16:54
|
>> Not even remotely.
>>
>> The fact that the words NO WAR are endorsed across Ukraine tells us something about
>> the author's intelligence and knowledge of the world.
>>
Yet again you choose one small part of the message... and ignore the point.
|
>> Yet again you choose one small part of the message... and ignore the point.
And the point is?
Or is it just that you're reposting stuff from 'Britain First' and similar?
|
>> And the point is?
Isn't the map obvious?
War zone on the right of the map.... huge great safe area in the middle..... desired destinations for many in the top or top left hand corner and to get to them they have to travel through the great big safe area.
>>
>> Or is it just that you're reposting stuff from 'Britain First' and similar?
>>
I don't have a clue what Britain First is, although I can guess. I'm not going to bother looking it up, because of my guess supported by your post.
I found what I posted on my Facebook account.
Your veiled hints at xenophobia and racism won't stop me posting what I think, even if sometimes it does coincide with the thoughts of people who are unpleasant, yet happen to be correct or I think they are correct, at that time.
|
>> tinyurl.com/nht9org
>>
>> Sums it up, doesn't it?
>>
No, it doesn't. Italy has a good benefits system as do other countries.
People travel to where they believe they will be welcome, by countries that have a liberal tolerance of others and who in the past have taken in refugees and treated them fairly. Not all of the other countries have and one of the routes demonstrated through the former Yugoslavian is still full of racial tension and distrust. Why would a Syrian refugee seek asylum in Serbia only a few years after they tried to ethnically cleanse the region of Muslims?
We have more than enough jobs for people here (my 6th form son proved it when looking for a summer job - he took his CV around to some firms and got several offers). Those that don't have jobs don't want them. I bet you if they could, most of the refugees would be happy to work for any assistance that they got, which is a darn sight more than many local white, English skivers would.
|
>> We have more than enough jobs for people here
I cannot remember where you are zippy but in a fair sized chunk of the East Midlands employers cannot fill vacancies. Unemployment in the Daventry Parliamentary Constituency is around 1%.
Nationally, the rate is around 5.5%, IIR 4% is regarded as close to full employment. The residue is churn in the jobs market and those who are realistically unemployable but not organised enough to get themselves treated as sick.
In reality there are still many areas of much higher unemployment with pockets in deprivedd areas as high as 40%. Conversely there are places like here where employers cannot attract people. The recruiter at CAB tells me we've had problems with filling clerical vacancies.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 5 Sep 15 at 17:23
|
>> The recruiter at CAB tells me we've had problems with filling clerical vacancies.
End result of enlightened sixties education policies which favoured illiteracy, undoing the patient work of educationists over two centuries or more?
How many university candidates these days can spell reliably, or compose a rational paragraph consisting of sentences, or have a legible and reasonably rapid longhand?
'We've got computers and spell-checkers!' you cry. But taking the long view, there's every likelihood of a collapse of civilization sooner or later, no electricity or batteries, back to the abacus and abracadabra, you mark my words, arrrrr...
|
>> How many university candidates these days can spell reliably, or compose a rational paragraph consisting
>> of sentences, or have a legible and reasonably rapid longhand?
Both my two for starters though daughter might struggle slightly on the spelling bit.....
I'd fall down on legible and rapid longhand. You can have nearly legible or rapid, not both. Being left handed doesn't help.
|
>> Being left handed doesn't help.
>>
Tell me about it.
|
>> No, it doesn't. Italy has a good benefits system as do other countries.
Yes, that part of the message was crude.
It's not just benefits, it's the false hope of benefits and the word of mouth Utopia that isn't always there....oh and some countries are more relaxed about sending people back, whereas others are more strict.
Why else would someone live in a grotty camp in Calais trying to get across the English Channel when they are already in a civilised country?
The basic message on that map is true though, the whole of Europe is a 'safe place', it's just that some wish to go to the 'better place'.
|
>> Why else would someone live in a grotty camp in Calais trying to get across
>> the English Channel when they are already in a civilised country?
The number in Calais is actually quite small. Mostly people who have either family in UK or seeking join settled communities in here. Lot of English speakers, many quite well educated and from outposts of our former empire.
>> The basic message on that map is true though, the whole of Europe is a
>> 'safe place', it's just that some wish to go to the 'better place'.
No the basic message is one of xenophobia with a racist subtext. I'd not be in least surprised to find it originated with Britain First or some even less savoury outfit. As Al pointed out on Friday there are many parts of Europe which would not be in the least safe for these people.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 6 Sep 15 at 09:45
|
I have reconsidered my view over the weekend.
I have now changed my stance and decided I will vote OUT in the EU referendum so we can avoid blackmail by Germany on refugees. Why? Because in England we have problems in both housing and crowding in metropolitan areas. All attempts at curtailing immigration look a failure whilst an EU member.
Since I am declared a racist here, I don't care what anyone says.
|
>> Since I am declared a racist here, I don't care what anyone says.
>>
It is not racist to realise that importing a problem is not a good plan, more like common sense.
|
>> I have now changed my stance and decided I will vote OUT in the EU
>> referendum so we can avoid blackmail by Germany on refugees. Why? Because in England we
>> have problems in both housing and crowding in metropolitan areas. All attempts at curtailing immigration
>> look a failure whilst an EU member.
In or out of the EU there are still millions of displaced people from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere trying to find refuge. The pressure from other countries will not go away either. It will just come via the UN, the Council of Europe or indeed our partners in the 'Free Trade Area' that will somehow allow us to magically retain the good parts of the EU bargain.
Similarly the demand for migrant workers from the EU, likely mostly from its former Comecon components, will remain. They come here to work, meeting demand from UK employers; in spite of the benefit tourist mythology their rights are pretty limited if they're not in jobs.
Mrs May's idea that they must have a job before being allowed in will do nothing but enrich the employment agencies of Warsaw, Sofia and Bucharest.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 6 Sep 15 at 13:30
|
>> Since I am declared a racist here, I don't care what anyone says.
Sorry if I misunderstood you madf, but I thought you had described yourself, openly and honourably, as racist in some way.
|
>> The number in Calais is actually quite small.
Yes, I agree with you, now answer the question, why are they there?
>> No the basic message is one of xenophobia with a racist subtext.
It might be....or it might be stating the obvious truth.... albeit some refuse to see it.
>> I'd not be
>> in least surprised to find it originated with Britain First or some even less savoury
>> outfit.
Quite possibly so, in fact I think it is most likely.... however, that fact doesn't make that message incorrect, does it? That's why organisations like that post those sorts of messages.
If someone unpalatable or plain nasty is right about something, their unpalatable or nasty nature doesn't change the facts, does it?
As Al pointed out on Friday there are many parts of Europe which would
>> not be in the least safe for these people.
... and equally so, enormous great chunks of it, by some considerable margin, that are perfectly safe places to be... and through which many choose to travel to get to other more sought after locations.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 6 Sep 15 at 15:54
|
>> Yes, I agree with you, now answer the question, why are they there?
Obviously they're wanting to enter the UK. As I said previously they are reported to be mostly people with family or settled communities here. Judging by TV interviews a lot of them speak good English and are educated. If we were willing to admit them on proof of a family link/settled community and good English basis I suspect we could cure the problem.
It's quite clear that the 'Dublin Regulation' about claiming asylum at first safe place on EU is no longer fit for purpose. The EU itself admits this.
It was intended to cope with relatively small numbers of people claiming asylum on basis of being an individual subject to persecution. If was becoming overwhelmed by those arriving from sub-saharan Africa. It's not remotely sustainable in face of what's happening in Syria/Iraq and it's no surprise that the people smugglers are finding ways to get people towards Germany, Sweden or in much smaller numbers the UK.
Those are the facts. They won't go away even if we leave the EU. Burying our heads in the sand and asserting that it's someone else's problem leads nowhere.
|
>> Judging by TV interviews
The TV interview I saw had one chap in Calais admit that he wanted to get to the UK because the UK is lax at sending people either home or back to their original destination.
|
>> Washington Post article on Obama's inaction:
>>
>> www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-horrific-results-of-obamas-strategy-in-syria/2015/09/03/c16c117a-526c-11e5-933e-7d06c647a395_story.html
>>
Hmmm. The Post was once a liberal paper. It now seems to dance to the Republican neo-con's tunes.
|
>> Hmmm. The Post was once a liberal paper. It now seems to dance to the
>> Republican neo-con's tunes.
>>
...or... is still a basically liberal paper, but thinks Obama's inaction is wrong.
|
>> ...or... is still a basically liberal paper, but thinks Obama's inaction is wrong.
Possible but there are other signs....
|
>> Another Guardian article:
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/david-cameron-help-refugees-must-stop-calling-them-economic-migrants
>>
"Cameron, however, will need to drop his claim that most people trying to come to Britain are economic migrants rather than refugees to do more to help them."
A statement made with no justification.
Typical.
|
>> "Cameron, however, will need to drop his claim that most people trying to come to
>> Britain are economic migrants rather than refugees to do more to help them."
>>
>> A statement made with no justification.
>>
>> Typical.
Unless we actually examine these people's claims there's no evidence for (or against) Cameron's assertion.
It's also clear listening to 5Live's feature on the subject this morning that there is an issue with the camps in Turkey.
Is somebody leaving an insanitary tented camp after 4 years with sweltering days, night temperatures well below freezing and no education for their children a refugee or an economic migrant?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 7 Sep 15 at 08:00
|
]
>> Is somebody leaving an insanitary tented camp after 4 years with sweltering days, night temperatures
>> well below freezing and no education for their children a refugee or an economic migrant?
the mostly well dressed young males with designer rucksacks and samsung galaxy phones complete with working air time contract clearly are,.
|
>> the mostly well dressed young males with designer rucksacks and samsung galaxy phones complete with
>> working air time contract clearly are,.
As Andrew Mitchell has just pointed out on the Today programme pre war Syria was a 'second world' country. It had an extensive professional and entrepreneurial middle class with good incomes. People have hung on living off savings and what they can sell. If they've got the phone a working sim costs a few Euro in Hungary.
You cannot assume people are economic migrants unless/until they're dressed in rags.
|
>> As Andrew Mitchell has just pointed out on the Today programme pre war Syria was
>> a 'second world' country. It had an extensive professional and entrepreneurial middle class with good
>> incomes. People have hung on living off savings and what they can sell. If they've
>> got the phone a working sim costs a few Euro in Hungary.
thought you said they had been living in a squalid refugee camp for 4 years? nope as an argument that wont wash. It is clear from those pictures we see, that at least half of the crowd are chancers.
And as such it clearly devalues, in the publics mind, the plight of the real victims.
|
Looking at the news this morning, it looks like Austria is now trying to close its borders to migrants.. only it can't.
Has Frau Merkel bitten off more than she can chew?
I suspect so.
|
>> Looking at the news this morning, it looks like Austria is now trying to close
>> its borders to migrants.. only it can't.
>>
>> Has Frau Merkel bitten off more than she can chew?
>>
>> I suspect so.
>>
It looks like the Genie is out of the bottle in the Shengen countries.
|
>> thought you said they had been living in a squalid refugee camp for 4 years?
>> nope as an argument that wont wash. It is clear from those pictures we see,
>> that at least half of the crowd are chancers.
Two different scenarios.
Firstly I asked a simple question, is somebody who is potless and has left a squalid etc camp an economic migrant or a refugee?
Secondly I pointed out that Syria had a well off middle class and that some people driven from their homes still have money in their pockets.
No contradiction - both might be genuine refugees (or not) depending on their circumstances.
|
>>
>> You cannot assume people are economic migrants unless/until they're dressed in rags.
>>
A surprising statement from you?
Do you really mean that, or do you mean "You cannot.... just because ..." ?
|
>> Do you really mean that, or do you mean "You cannot.... just because ..." ?
I meant that they can be refugees and still be decently dressed and have cash in their pockets.
|
>> I meant that they can be refugees and still be decently dressed and have cash
>> in their pockets.
Funnily enough they could have moved to one of the safe areas in Syria using the money they have. There are safe areas in Syria.
|
>>
>> >> Do you really mean that, or do you mean "You cannot.... just because ..."
>> ?
>>
>> I meant that they can be refugees and still be decently dressed and have cash
>> in their pockets.
>>
That's not actually what you said, which was why I asked.
(leaving aside difference between refugee and economic migrant)
|
Has Merkel just written Germany's suicide note?
Given that Germany has a huge Turkish Moslem population, is it wise to admit more people professing the same proselytising and intolerant faith?
|
>> Has Merkel just written Germany's suicide note?
Either that, Roger, or you are entirely wrong about the issue.
Roger or Merkel, Roger or Merkel. Hmm. I wonder. Who would be in the best place to make a judgement on such matters. Hmm... Struggling. Can anyone help?
|
|
Great one liner spotted on Twitter today: "I don't understand how possessing a cellphone makes someone a less convincing refugee. They're fleeing war, not visiting from 18th century."
|
|
I wonder who is checking if ISIS fighters are entering Europe disguised as refugees/migrants.
|
|
I expect those who are vetting applicants and processing the asylum applications in EU countries are doing that. I don't expect them to get every single case right 100% of the time though.
|
|
A very very difficult job to do.
|
>> I wonder who is checking if ISIS fighters are entering Europe disguised as refugees/migrants.
>>
Just how would you do that?
|
Well, some self-proclaimed terrorist declares that this has happened, it must therefore be the truth. Presumably if the man had said that there were no terrorists in Europe then you would have believed that equally as keenly?
Now maybe there are, and maybe there are not. But taking that blokes word for it?
Pull your skirt down Roger, your bitterness is showing.
|
>> Just how would you do that?
Well, you can't - that was my point.
>> As in, have you ever actually taken a moment to sit down, over a meal or a pot of coffee, and actually discuss this,
I don't think anecdotal evidence matters here. The question is, how do you predict their behavior when they are no longer a minority but a majority. To answer this question, just observe how non muslims are treated in muslim majority countries.
Last edited by: movilogo on Mon 7 Sep 15 at 17:12
|
The question is, how do you predict their
>> behavior when they are no longer a minority but a majority. To answer this question,
>> just observe how non muslims are treated in muslim majority countries.
You think muslims will become a majority in this country?
|
>> You think muslims will become a majority in this country?
>>
They already are in some areas.
|
>> >> You think muslims will become a majority in this country?
>> >>
>>
>> They already are in some areas.
Not in the scotland area, or the england area, or the wales area. Which as you can see is just as much a silly answer as yours was.
|
www.mcb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/.../MCBCensusReport_2015.pd...
A bit of light reading for you Zero.
|
>> www.mcb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/.../MCBCensusReport_2015.pd...
>>
>> A bit of light reading for you Zero.
>>
The link isn't working.
|
>> The link isn't working.
>>
It downloads as a pdf to my android tablet.
It is the Muslim Council of Britain take on the 2011 census published in 2015.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 7 Sep 15 at 19:11
|
>> >> The link isn't working.
>> >>
>>
>> It downloads as a pdf to my android tablet.
>>
>> It is the Muslim Council of Britain take on the 2011 census published in 2015.
>>
www.mcb.org.uk/muslimstatistics/
Is this the same as the report on your tablet?
|
>> Is this the same as the report on your tablet?
>>
It is a summary, my link is the whole 80 page report.
|
>> >> The link isn't working.
>> >>
>>
>> It downloads as a pdf to my android tablet.
>>
>> It is the Muslim Council of Britain take on the 2011 census published in 2015.
Its still not working.
|
>> Its still not working.
>>
It is easily found with a search.
|
>> >> You think muslims will become a majority in this country?
>> >>
>>
>> They already are in some areas.
>>
The point was about the country not about neighbourhoods.
|
>> The point was about the country not about neighbourhoods.
>>
Muslim numbers have doubled in the last ten years, neighbourhoods today what in the future?
|
>> >> The point was about the country not about neighbourhoods.
>> >>
>>
>> Muslim numbers have doubled in the last ten years, neighbourhoods today what in the future?
Who knows, even the jocks might throw you out, you are after all an immigrant.
|
>> Who knows, even the jocks might throw you out, you are after all an immigrant.
>>
>>
No problem, that means I am a refugee, I can set up a tent in your garden.
|
>> >> Who knows, even the jocks might throw you out, you are after all an
>> immigrant.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> No problem, that means I am a refugee, I can set up a tent in
>> your garden.
you can't it'll be full muslims inside 5 months remember.
|
>>you can't it'll be full muslims inside 5 months remember.
Many a true word spoken in jest.
|
>> >> The point was about the country not about neighbourhoods.
>> >>
>>
>> Muslim numbers have doubled in the last ten years, neighbourhoods today what in the future?
>>
From a small base it's not difficult. They are around 4% identify themselves as Muslim. I would suggest getting to 51% ie a majority is quite a long time away should the increase continue at that rate. Alot of things will happen to people's attitudes in that time.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 7 Sep 15 at 19:26
|
>> >> The point was about the country not about neighbourhoods.
>> >>
>>
>> Muslim numbers have doubled in the last ten years, neighbourhoods today what in the future?
No they haven't. Its gone from 2.71% to 4.41%
|
>> Has Merkel just written Germany's suicide note?
>> Given that Germany has a huge Turkish Moslem population, is it wise to admit more
>> people professing the same proselytising and intolerant faith?
I've stayed out of this until now, but I have to ask. Roger, do you actually know any Muslims? As in, have you ever actually taken a moment to sit down, over a meal or a pot of coffee, and actually discuss this, or other current affairs with someone from the Islamic faith?
Because I have, and I genuinely, honestly, cannot relate to your choice of words like "proselytising" and "intolerant". I count a strict Muslim among my closest friends. We've been to each other's houses, eaten at each others' tables, met each other's wife and kids, the first time meeting the former was at his wedding.
If your views are based on similar direct experience, I would be very interested to know exactly who you met that has prompted you to make such a sweeping judgement.
Islam of course has its share of fanatics and nutters. The thing is Roger, not only does every other religion, but most Muslims would actually agree with you that they need dealing with. Most Muslims are just ordinary people wanting to earn a crust, raise their families, and get ahead in life. People with far more similarities to me than differences, quite honestly.
Last edited by: DP on Mon 7 Sep 15 at 16:35
|
It was worth logging in just to say I agree with you DP
Pat
|
Migrant Crisis - R.P.
