20 odd pages on Labour and nothing on the refugee crisis??!!
Comments
-
And nobody has tried to anwer Dabber's very relevant questions back on page 1.So how many would you let in?
1,000... 10,000.... 100,000.... 1,000,000.... 10,000,000
How long would you open he doors for. Just until the end of the year, or indefinitely?
Any takers?
Depends how many refugees there are doesn't it?
:roll:0 -
Here are some reasonable looking estimates:
And nobody has tried to anwer Dabber's very relevant questions back on page 1.So how many would you let in?
1,000... 10,000.... 100,000.... 1,000,000.... 10,000,000
How long would you open he doors for. Just until the end of the year, or indefinitely?
Any takers?
Depends how many refugees there are doesn't it?
:roll:
http://syrianrefugees.eu
Now what's your answer?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
so 150,000 in the EU so far.
EU is 750 million odd.
UK is 70 million - so bit less than 10% of EU.
so 15,000?
Whatever's proportional.
EU can support it easily, so they share it out evenly.
That way the refugees are helped and the burden is shared.
Edit: if you want to add the 33,000 who are coming too, then it's more like 18,000.
Fairly small in the grand scheme of UK migration.0 -
And nobody has tried to anwer Dabber's very relevant questions back on page 1.So how many would you let in?
1,000... 10,000.... 100,000.... 1,000,000.... 10,000,000
How long would you open he doors for. Just until the end of the year, or indefinitely?
Any takers?
Depends how many refugees there are doesn't it?
:roll:
So if they kept coming your answer would be unlimited and indefinitely would it?“You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!”
Wilier Cento Uno SR/Wilier Mortirolo/Specialized Roubaix Comp/Kona Hei Hei/Calibre Bossnut0 -
That is only 'so far' as you said.so 150,000 in the EU so far.
EU is 750 million odd.
UK is 70 million - so bit less than 10% of EU.
so 15,000?
Whatever's proportional.
EU can support it easily, so they share it out evenly.
That way the refugees are helped and the burden is shared.
Edit: if you want to add the 33,000 who are coming too, then it's more like 18,000.
Fairly small in the grand scheme of UK migration.
I was asking about how many refugees you think should we take in total. Clearly this country does not have an unlimited capacity and there are far more refugees out there than have currently arrived in Europe, with the potential for many more to be displaced if the conflict spreads. So what is your view on the maximum number that the UK should give shelter to?
Also relevant is how long they should be sheltered for. For example, would it be until it is reasonably safe to return, or for the rest of their lives?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The numbers are since 2011 so that's around 45,000 a year.
I ultimately see your position as selfish. I have all this and I don't want it spoilt just because there's some problem somewhere else. To the point where you won't help people fleeing from a war involving evil acts on both sides.
So yeah, have them stay. What are the rules on asylum seekers atm?
I imagine they are better thought out than fag packet stuff here.
A close friend was a (toddler) refugee from Rwanada. UK only let his parents and his brother in as his father was a doctor. The rest of his family, aunts, grandparents, etc were all murdered in the genocide not long after the refusal.
If you heard the stories his norther tells you wouldn't think twice about helping refugees.
Stop being so selfish.
EU is the richest contingent on earth. Any legit refugee should be allowed in and helped. Share the burden by proportion of population across the 750m or by GDP. Which ever is fairer.
This is humanity we are discussing. Man up and take one for the team.0 -
WAR! what is it good for.....................absolutely nothing. As the song goes.
its all very well saying we cant let them in but tell us all what we can do that doesnt involve forceably stopping them and turning them back ?
Living on an island has some benefits. Personally, I would have no objection to the army/navy protecting our borders in an appropriate and reasoned manner since just because someone is determined to live here doesn't mean we have to just roll over and let them in.
Have some empathy for refugees. Think what they are going through for a minute. Think about why they are willing to risk so much to get away from where they are.
To Goodwin the thread, people said more or less the same in 1930s when Jews were banging on the door of the UK. My friend wrote an interesting Masters on it.
The solution for overcrowding on trains, hospitals etc, is to invest money into those areas, not push war refugees back into a warzone.
And what was needed in the end? War.
That's the elephant in the room. The barbaric regimes causing people to flee need to be crushed. How many of you will be willing to sign up to a full blown assault on IS or regime change in Syria? Sad fact is, that is what is required.
No doubt about it, it is a humanitarian crisis, but as some others have asked of those keen to show their compassion credentials, should there be a limit to how many we accommodate and how can you decide where to draw the line. Is there a numerical or monetary limit to your compassion?
Interestingly, people are keen to open borders to those that have made it across to Europe, but what of the weaker/poorer ones not up to the journey? What would you do about them? Is that to be the acid test of whether you get aid or not, the ability to cross the Med?Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
I haven't stated any position on this point. I am simply questioning your position in more detail. So get off your moral high horse and ATQ...The numbers are since 2011 so that's around 45,000 a year.
I ultimately see your position as selfish. I have all this and I don't want it spoilt just because there's some problem somewhere else. To the point where you won't help people fleeing from a war involving evil acts on both sides.
So yeah, have them stay. What are the rules on asylum seekers atm?
I imagine they are better thought out than fag packet stuff here.
A close friend was a (toddler) refugee from Rwanada. UK only let his parents and his brother in as his father was a doctor. The rest of his family, aunts, grandparents, etc were all murdered in the genocide not long after the refusal.
If you heard the stories his norther tells you wouldn't think twice about helping refugees.
Stop being so selfish.
EU is the richest contingent on earth. Any legit refugee should be allowed in and helped. Share the burden by proportion of population across the 750m or by GDP. Which ever is fairer.
This is humanity we are discussing. Man up and take one for the team."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
My question was what about the sorry folks who can't escape. All the left leaning people on here who seem to think that they have cornered the market in compassion, make scant mention of them. They are happy to take in an arbitrary figure to assuage their conscience, but what about the source of the problem and everyone left behind.
People have made scant mention of them because the thread was about migration into Europe and that's what most of the political debate has been about. It's certainly the most pressing issue for the EU at the moment, seeing as there are X thousand of them moving around in European territories at the moment and previous assumptions about freedom of movement within the Schengen Area have suddenly shown to be completely inadequate when dealing with a crisis of this proportion. I don't see the need for attacks on the motives of people from the political left or centre (and there must be some on the right who are in favour of allowing refugees in).
I've discussed what I feel to be the only possible solution of the problem - diplomatic efforts aimed at stabilising the countries - but I think that how to get there is too difficult for anyone on here to answer given the geopolitical reality of the world today.
As for the internal refugees in Syria and those who have made it to Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, to be honest I don't know. Obviously humanitarian assistance is needed - food, medicine, shelter, clean water - and those three countries can't be expected to shoulder the entire burden of the conflict.0 -
Yes, war would be unwise, but a previous poster likened today's flight with that of the Jews in the 30s and war was the only way to rid the world of a despicable regime. The root of the problem isn't in Europe but N Africa.
As I asked in the previous post, are the poor people unable to escape going to be exempt from our benevolence?
the situation is completely different.
For a start had hitler limited his aims toward the Soviets, would we even had gone to war? we certainly didnt to save the jews, who were being killed by the Nazis from the mid 1930's.
If japan had not attacked the USA we would have lost and would now either be run under a federal europe controlled by Germany and/or been beholden to a resugent russia........
the allies had an end plan for germany, it was rebuilt and controlled, aided by a crushed population, who didnt include a large number of religious fanatics.
The UK/USA have created this mess in libya/Syria and Iraq, what can we now do about it? i dont think anyone has a clue, its all stable door....
Mamba, what would you do to stop the root cause of the refugee crisis?
There is no stopping it Stevo. as the saying goes "you reap what you sow" the root causes of this crisis lay in decisions made by Bush,Blair and Cameron many years ago.
I do not believe we can prevent anything in the short to med term, there is no miliary solution and the only way to stop them is by force and i dont think many will support that yet...... but there is still time :shock:
we just have to deal with the numbers reaching europe, i would issue temp visas and make it absolutely clear, that if peace returns to their home countries, they ll have to return, promising permanant resisdency is a mistake, these places will need the most able and educated to rebuild their home countries and we in the west will have to dig deep to support them.
I also think that treating them as if they were european citizens is unsustainable, we ve not the school places/med care and housing to do this, so we may have to just provide safe places of refuge ie camps within europes borders, whilst the infrastructure is put in place.
what about yourself stevo? how would you address the immediate crisis and root cause?0 -
Mamba,
While Iraq etc now seems pretty clearly like a big mistake we can't turn back the clock.
If I am honest I am still trying to come to a view on this. But I think that what we do has to address both symptoms and root causes and both have to have some form of sensible limits. Which is why I question those who seem to be happy to address one part without any caveat but totally fail to address the other part.
Few will disagree that we should try to help those that are displaced. Question is how. However as Bally said earlier, this fails to address helping those that are unable to escape - who are likely to be the most vulnerable - elderly, infirm, or too poor to pay their way to Europe. If people are saying that we should take refugees into the UK without limit, I cannot see how they can ignore those left behind in the conflict zone and keep a clear conscience.
As for who should take them, then why just Europe? Either you take the view that it is neighbouring countries who take refugees or at least the nearest safe havens - or you make it a world problem/world solution. Agree on your point about temporary haven btw.
However as to your point about camps, while we should not be trying to grant citizenship and integrate that volume IMO, not so sure about having camps in Northern climates in winter - best have them somewhere that they won't freeze or end up in a mud bath and we help support those locations that do house them. So I believe they are best off close to where they have escaped from - it is also easier for them to go back when it is safe to do so.
Also without addressing root cause - IS - the situation will continue and likely get worse and as you rightly said, there are limits on UK and EU infrastructure in terms of being able to integrate the likely eventual numbers. Also without dealing with IS they have the opportunity to spread and at some point we will have to face them, possibly when they are much stronger if we wait. Not an appealing prospect but probably unavoidable and waiving a white flag now is not the right thing to do.
This is one where I admit I don't have all the answers. But neither does anyone else - on this thread or anywhere else as far as I can see."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I don't see any reason why the US should not take a few 100,000 there is plenty of room out there, and I agree with Mamba it was Bush and Blair who to a large degree caused this. If any nations have a particular responsibility it is us and the US.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Mamba,
While Iraq etc now seems pretty clearly like a big mistake we can't turn back the clock.
If I am honest I am still trying to come to a view on this. But I think that what we do has to address both symptoms and root causes and both have to have some form of sensible limits. Which is why I question those who seem to be happy to address one part without any caveat but totally fail to address the other part.
Few will disagree that we should try to help those that are displaced. Question is how. However as Bally said earlier, this fails to address helping those that are unable to escape - who are likely to be the most vulnerable - elderly, infirm, or too poor to pay their way to Europe. If people are saying that we should take refugees into the UK without limit, I cannot see how they can ignore those left behind in the conflict zone and keep a clear conscience.
As for who should take them, then why just Europe? Either you take the view that it is neighbouring countries who take refugees or at least the nearest safe havens - or you make it a world problem/world solution. Agree on your point about temporary haven btw.
However as to your point about camps, while we should not be trying to grant citizenship and integrate that volume IMO, not so sure about having camps in Northern climates in winter - best have them somewhere that they won't freeze or end up in a mud bath and we help support those locations that do house them. So I believe they are best off close to where they have escaped from - it is also easier for them to go back when it is safe to do so.
Also without addressing root cause - IS - the situation will continue and likely get worse and as you rightly said, there are limits on UK and EU infrastructure in terms of being able to integrate the likely eventual numbers. Also without dealing with IS they have the opportunity to spread and at some point we will have to face them, possibly when they are much stronger if we wait. Not an appealing prospect but probably unavoidable and waiving a white flag now is not the right thing to do.
No we cant turn back the clock but should we be trusting the same people who made the first mistakes to try and put it right?
But it is still not too late to help Assad, build bridges with Iran and use their forces with our money to stop IS, it wont be perfect and they ll still be large numbers of refugees, but imho only Assad can re unite Syria, we could impose conditions on our support, like reunification and an end to bombing of civilians.
the US will not take refugees, they have enough domestic issues with race, without importing more concerns.
Germany housed 100's of 1000's of troops during the cold war, we have disused barracks all over the UK, we could house refugees in modern well equipped temp accomodation, could we not? we certainly dont have the means to put them in normal housing do we?
Europe together let alone individual countries have no means to stop IS we ve run down our defence forces and invested in nuclear at the expense of conventional.
We cannot have sensible limits Stevo, where would those be? they d always be more deserving people needing our help and neither can we help all those left behind in syria, eritrea sudan etc let alone in Libya, Afganistan and Iraq - aid workers in any country where IS have a hold end up dead and even those working in camps on the borders have been kidnapped and killed.
in safer countries we can help but because of demostic politics, we may not be welcome in larger numbers, Red X, Save the children maybe.
To rearm europe, will take years and we are no where nr even beginning to do so, the US will not put soldiers on the ground, not yet anyway and europe havent the means, the Sun might say we ve the best the best armed forces in the world but thats b0ll0x, they are run down to levels not seen since the 30's. the UK has 6 aging tornados bombing targets in Iraq and have launched a tiny % of missles on IS targets.
Basically Steve & Bally, you are living in a dream world if you think the EU or UK will take on IS, even if it had the political will, it cannot even stop a few traffickers operating out of Libya.0 -
I don't recall saying the UK or, Lord have mercy, the EU would take on IS. I just pointed out where the root cause of the problem lay and the only way to resolve it is force, unpalatable as that is. For the moment it remains in the 'Too Difficult' tray on every world leader's desk.
I quite like Mamba's idea of limiting the stay of refugees until it is safe for them to return home, but I fear that would lead to problems years hence with enforced repatriation.
I don't pretend to have the answers but I don't think that totally open house to refugees is the answer as some have suggested and neither do I think it selfish to oppose it.0 -
20 odd pages on a Labour and nothing on the refugee crisis
Is the refugee crisis anything new?"The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
Agree. I don't see why helping them automatically means bringing them in unlimited numbers to this country. It would proably be better for all if they stayed in the region and received help there.I don't pretend to have the answers but I don't think that totally open house to refugees is the answer as some have suggested and neither do I think it selfish to oppose it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Agree. I don't see why helping them automatically means bringing them in unlimited numbers to this country. It would proably be better for all if they stayed in the region and received help there.I don't pretend to have the answers but I don't think that totally open house to refugees is the answer as some have suggested and neither do I think it selfish to oppose it.
Who in any position of power is suggesting this?
the EU wants all member countries to take, a yet to be arranged quota but has also said that UK, Ireland and Denmark can be exempt - Cameron has said he will take a large number from camps bordering Syria, mainly children by recent reports.
so whats the issue?
why anyone in dump of a camp, with no hope of return to Syria is going to want to stay there is beyond me, so whilst we need to make conditions better, it wont solve anything.
if there is a solution, it lies with Iran and Russia and for us to side with Assad, as unpalatable as that might be, we ve got rid of 2 despot leaders and its led to chaos, lets not get rid of a 3rd.0 -
Agree. I don't see why helping them automatically means bringing them in unlimited numbers to this country. It would proably be better for all if they stayed in the region and received help there.I don't pretend to have the answers but I don't think that totally open house to refugees is the answer as some have suggested and neither do I think it selfish to oppose it.
Who in any position of power is suggesting this?
the EU wants all member countries to take, a yet to be arranged quota but has also said that UK, Ireland and Denmark can be exempt - Cameron has said he will take a large number from camps bordering Syria, mainly children by recent reports.
so whats the issue?
why anyone in dump of a camp, with no hope of return to Syria is going to want to stay there is beyond me, so whilst we need to make conditions better, it wont solve anything.
if there is a solution, it lies with Iran and Russia and for us to side with Assad, as unpalatable as that might be, we ve got rid of 2 despot leaders and its led to chaos, lets not get rid of a 3rd.
No-one in power is suggesting this.
This was a reference to a previous poster who seemed to be advovating such.0 -
Having an interesting discussion about this last night. I think we can agree that this is nothing new, but we were quite happy with the 'out of sight, out of mind' adage which meant that we could happily go about our business, conscience clear.
With the photograph of the dead child recently doing the rounds, it has obviously brought the atrocities to the front of everyones mind, meaning sentiment is to sympathise with the displaced and even those left behind.
Does this not then build public support for the government to take action against the perpetrators of these acts, thus building support for troops on the ground in Syria/Iran?0 -
0
-
Having an interesting discussion about this last night. I think we can agree that this is nothing new, but we were quite happy with the 'out of sight, out of mind' adage which meant that we could happily go about our business, conscience clear.
With the photograph of the dead child recently doing the rounds, it has obviously brought the atrocities to the front of everyones mind, meaning sentiment is to sympathise with the displaced and even those left behind.
Does this not then build public support for the government to take action against the perpetrators of these acts, thus building support for troops on the ground in Syria/Iran?
UKGOV opinion poll suggests the opposite, with the OUT (of EU) vote in the majority for the first time and another majority in favour of limiting or even halting any more refugees into the UK, public sympathy is in short supply - i ll believe Cameron when additional Syrian refugees actualy start coming into the UK, i think he is just playing to the gallery.
As mamba said, without US led military involvment and agreement of President Assad then troops in Syria is a no no and as for going back into Iraq.... that ship sailed long ago.0 -
Cameron will take just enough so that nobody can say the UK isn't pulling it's weight - that will be in the low tens of thousands. He's got a difficult balancing act - he doesn't want to look like he's a heartless bastard but he can't afford to look soft on immigration especially with the referendum on EU membership coming up and the potential for splits in the Tory party.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
Cameron will take just enough so that nobody can say the UK isn't pulling it's weight - that will be in the low tens of thousands. He's got a difficult balancing act - he doesn't want to look like he's a heartless bastard but he can't afford to look soft on immigration especially with the referendum on EU membership coming up and the potential for splits in the Tory party.
I see this as an entirely separate matter to immigration and I think most of the public do too. There is a big difference between refugees who have no real choice and those who are coming over to get a job.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Cameron will take just enough so that nobody can say the UK isn't pulling it's weight - that will be in the low tens of thousands. He's got a difficult balancing act - he doesn't want to look like he's a heartless bastard but he can't afford to look soft on immigration especially with the referendum on EU membership coming up and the potential for splits in the Tory party.
I see this as an entirely separate matter to immigration and I think most of the public do too. There is a big difference between refugees who have no real choice and those who are coming over to get a job.
It's all immigration just with different motives. I know there has been a move to define immigrants purely in terms of those who move for economic motives but the impact of someone moving here on things like health services, education places, housing, social integration etc is not entirely separate.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
but i think (or at least I hope) people don't see the country letting refugees settle here as being "soft on immigration".www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0
-
Some will, some won't. It may depend to some extent on the numbers involved.but i think (or at least I hope) people don't see the country letting refugees settle here as being "soft on immigration".
Although how do we distinguish between those that are genuine refugees from economic migrants? Human nature being what it is, there will be those who see the current situation as an 'open door' opportunity to get into Europe for economic reasons but tag along with genuine refugees."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Bally, correct. As I have had no answer to my question of what some people see as the maximum number that we should take in, I have to assume that they have no such limit.
Agree. I don't see why helping them automatically means bringing them in unlimited numbers to this country. It would proably be better for all if they stayed in the region and received help there.I don't pretend to have the answers but I don't think that totally open house to refugees is the answer as some have suggested and neither do I think it selfish to oppose it.
Who in any position of power is suggesting this?
the EU wants all member countries to take, a yet to be arranged quota but has also said that UK, Ireland and Denmark can be exempt - Cameron has said he will take a large number from camps bordering Syria, mainly children by recent reports.
so whats the issue?
why anyone in dump of a camp, with no hope of return to Syria is going to want to stay there is beyond me, so whilst we need to make conditions better, it wont solve anything.
if there is a solution, it lies with Iran and Russia and for us to side with Assad, as unpalatable as that might be, we ve got rid of 2 despot leaders and its led to chaos, lets not get rid of a 3rd.
No-one in power is suggesting this.
This was a reference to a previous poster who seemed to be advovating such.
Although Mamba makes a good point that while Assad far from being the nicest head of state on earth, he is better than the alternative. As recent history in the region has taught us, sometimes it's better to have a right bastard in charge (Iraq, Libya) to keep a lid on things. Lesser of two evils etc."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Bally, correct. As I have had no answer to my question of what some people see as the maximum number that we should take in, I have to assume that they have no such limit.
Although Mamba makes a good point that while Assad far from being the nicest head of state on earth, he is better than the alternative. As recent history in the region has taught us, sometimes it's better to have a right bastard in charge (Iraq, Libya) to keep a lid on things. Lesser of two evils etc.
Must be a first, we agreeing on something!
As said Stevo, there is no limit, not at least in the short/medium term, so Cameron allows 20k refugees and then there is another appalling photograph? let in another 20k or 40k? why not 1m?
there is 9.5m displaced people in and around syria, eritrea is a country of 6m, sudan 43m, the danger in the actions of Merkel and Cameron etc is that more will flee not only war but poverty and the voters in europe will turn to the hard right and then we ll let in no one.0 -
But would the Syrian people accept having gone through all this just to end up with Assad still in charge?0
-
9.5 million displaced people does not mean refugees that want to leave Syria. Some displaced people could be within relatively safe areas controlled. Assad's forces and potentially safe.enough. I don't know if the.number who have fled Syria or want to flee Syria works out at 9.5million as this figure states. It could be a case of using technically correct figures in a misleading way.
However, if we were.to take the figure 9.5 million potential refugees heading to Europe then if UK accounts for almost 10% of the EU population then I'd be happy if we take in 10% of this figure. Is that enough of an answer for you. As.far away as a affording it I have no answers other than feeling we have to a moral duty to help refugees. The idea they should stay at the first point of entry into EU is impractical with this level of movements.
As far as root cause that's another case of UK, EU, USA and others having a duty to help sort it out. Between Russia and.USA (plus allies) the whole area has been a proxy war for so long.
I read something about Putin showing signs of looking b at reducing support for Assad. Can't remember what it was but something happened that triggered doubt in Russia over Assad. If they slow down support then things b will truly become difficult. A weakened Assad without Russian involvement is a dangerous situation. Who would Assad turn to?0
