INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Migrants via the Tunnel

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#141 Post by Alan H » August 19th, 2015, 11:10 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#142 Post by Dave B » August 19th, 2015, 7:47 pm

I still cannot understand why Britain is the ultimate target for these people. As I said before as soon as they get on to EU soil much of any political or violent danger dissappears - what it wrong with settling in any other country? I have to admit that I read the feeling that a country which had already rejected one man as being "home" with sceticism (as I read all journalistic output in the field ofvreporting on this type os story.

It's not as is Britain is that great and, in bendfit and public support terms, getting worse. It is currehtly difficult for Asian restuarsnts to "import" kitchen staff, and those people will have a job and accomodation (of sorts) arranged for them.

Are these migrants following a myth?


Additional to my incomplete answer to animist:vI don't do politics. Sociology, psychology, yes - observable reactions of real humans to stimuli and environment rather that a form of thinking based on ideologies generated by groupthink mainly.

Later edit in bold, just to clarify.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#143 Post by animist » August 19th, 2015, 8:04 pm

sorry, Dave, I give up with you. Alan, you keep posting supportive stuff about the immigrants at Calais, but do you think they should be allowed to cross over to this sceptred (septic? sceptic?) isle?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#144 Post by Dave B » August 19th, 2015, 9:04 pm

animist wrote:sorry, Dave, I give up with you. Alan, you keep posting supportive stuff about the immigrants at Calais, but do you think they should be allowed to cross over to this sceptred (septic? sceptic?) isle?
Fair enough, animist, but don't forget that I really do have humanist aims - we very much disagree on method rather than intention.

History has lessons here.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#145 Post by Alan H » August 19th, 2015, 9:36 pm

animist wrote:Alan, you keep posting supportive stuff about the immigrants at Calais, but do you think they should be allowed to cross over to this sceptred (septic? sceptic?) isle?
I think there are several questions and I'm not sure I know the full answers to them:

1. Are we fulfilling out legal commitments and obligations. It seems we don't take that many compared to other EU countries, so it could be we're not living up to what we have promised or are expected to do - we are not playing our part and not taking our share. But I'm not sure I really know the full answer to that - and a good bit of that has to do with which ones are migrants and which are asylum-seekers. There is certainly a distinction in law between them, but that takes us on to...

2. Are we fulfilling our moral obligations to our fellow humans. This seems to cause some consternation, particularly with the Government who would rather wash their hands of it all, build a higher fence, bring in the dogs and leave them to be someone else's problem. Now, it could be we take the attitude that moral obligations are not a function of Government (and it's painfully obvious the current lot by and large take that attitude). However, like many things, there is not a huge amount individuals and non-governmental agencies can do, given the attitude of Government and they certainly can't solve the 'problem' long term. At best, the Government see any moral obligations they have as stopping firmly at our borders.

But both of these still leave the immediate problem: there are humans, for whatever reasons, in dire need of some humanity and help - some aid agencies and, it should be noted, religious organisations - are providing much-needed immediate help. Could we help these particular individuals and families? Of course we could - at the drop of a hat with a barely perceptible impact on anything. But what worries some - or at least some politicians want to plant the fear - is that if we were to take this 'swarm' in, we'd be inundated in the future. But that really is another issue and others have commented on what might happen in the future. But I think that brings us back full circle to my first point: what are our commitments and obligations?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#146 Post by Alan H » August 19th, 2015, 11:23 pm

Whenever you think of migrants arriving in Europe, think of this image
2015-08-19_23h20_53.png
2015-08-19_23h20_53.png (309.23 KiB) Viewed 1650 times
It depicts a Syrian refugee from Deir Ezzor, in tears while holding his son and daughter after arriving on the island of Kos in Greece, on 15 August.

He and his family had travelled on a flimsy inflatable boat carrying around 15 men, women and children.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Ray
Posts: 2
Joined: August 19th, 2015, 10:07 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#147 Post by Ray » August 19th, 2015, 11:42 pm

Reality checks of this kind test the humanist perspective beyond its powers to supply them. One finds significant proportions of the population torn between their own plight; more especially the more compromised their life is already, as opposed to say someone who is comfortably sustained, though not exclusively so. (Some people are successful due their level of bias in their own success period rather than any consideration for the plight of other's per se!)

What's the principle here?

The furtherance of persecution against vulnerable other's feels intrinsically wrong! However the scale of their plight induces fear and doubts about those whom in some cases might not offer you the same level of consideration, were it a choice between you and them - or at least the fear of that possibility. This implies at least some point of critical mass at which you as an individual might behave in some context or other as the bigot would in most cases.

I think this is the trauma we all sense - of having our own humanitarian principles pushed beyond their capabilities.

So inevitably, to the politics of such a gamble - becoming one that will potentially do you a disservice and hardship without thanks; as opposed to your displaying your kindness and it all coming good at some future lifestyle for everyone? In this sense these people are already subject to ourselves playing with words whilst meaning life and death; over their futures.

This is the ultimate irony, that as human numbers increase and strife escalates, the values of the common good are the first to get squashed and disregarded so that what remains as a future, significant and powerful component of whatever governs those who remain; is simply the values of those who somehow get included - for self interest to prevail above the lives of other's!

It is tragic. It is an impossible task unless there is more international will to secure humanist principles, rather than purely capitalist values.

We are largely dependent upon changing the order of how our world functions for everyones benefit; than the few.

It's why we're humanist and not religious: by foundation.

It's what must increase dramatically, to make what we think a more dominant clause in how all people get treated the world over.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#148 Post by Alan H » August 20th, 2015, 6:22 pm

It's OK. The Tories have come up with another whizzo wheeze to solve the crisis: Calais migrant crisis: UK streets are 'not paved with gold' - Theresa May signs £7m deal to stop migrants entering Britain
It includes a commitment by the UK to offer migrants funds for flights back to their home countries, as well as contributing translators to provide refugees with a more realistic sense of life in the UK.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#149 Post by Alan H » August 22nd, 2015, 11:23 am

Why Al Jazeera will not say Mediterranean 'migrants'

'Human beings' or 'people' would be good words to use as well - certainly not swarms or 'marauding migrants'.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#150 Post by Alan H » August 30th, 2015, 2:08 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#151 Post by Alan H » August 31st, 2015, 11:17 pm

The Daily Express vying for position with the Daily Mail:
2015-08-31_23h15_24.png
2015-08-31_23h15_24.png (378.42 KiB) Viewed 1588 times
They're talking about 2080, but still...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#152 Post by animist » September 1st, 2015, 6:14 pm

Alan H wrote:The Daily Express vying for position with the Daily Mail:
2015-08-31_23h15_24.png
They're talking about 2080, but still...
well, we could cut the numbers a bit by shooting all those involved with producing (or maybe even buying) these crap organs of opinion

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#153 Post by Alan H » September 2nd, 2015, 11:09 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#154 Post by animist » September 2nd, 2015, 6:31 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:The Daily Express vying for position with the Daily Mail:
2015-08-31_23h15_24.png
They're talking about 2080, but still...
well, we could cut the numbers a bit by shooting all those involved with producing (or maybe even buying) these crap organs of opinion
but hey, I bet if the idiot press decided that population numbers represented national virility then the twats who represent most of the indigenous population would want us to overtake Germany

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#155 Post by Altfish » September 2nd, 2015, 6:52 pm

Don't expect to see this picture in tomorrow's Mail or Express...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 82757.html


***Warning - not nice photo***

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#156 Post by Alan H » September 2nd, 2015, 9:00 pm

Warning: the same photo is used here: Make your voice heard: Sign The Independent's petition to welcome refugees

Sign the petition to David 'call me Dave' Cameron here.
Britain must accept its fair share of refugees seeking safety in Europe

Millions of men, women and children are fleeing the Middle East and Africa to find safety in the West. The Independent believes Britain must no longer turn a blind eye to their plight and must work with other European Union countries to set and welcome a quota of refugees.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#157 Post by Dave B » September 2nd, 2015, 9:09 pm

I have signed this assuming it relates to genuine refugees, fleeing actual danger to their lives, rather than economic migrants.

But I wish Change would offer an "unsubscribe" link, I wish to be selective in my support and not badgered with emails.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#158 Post by Alan H » September 2nd, 2015, 9:10 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#159 Post by Alan H » September 3rd, 2015, 11:48 am

This refugee crisis was a test for David Cameron. He’s flunked it
In the wake of his stupid words about the “swarm” of people arriving in Calais, can anyone imagine David Cameron saying – and doing – anything halfway comparable? Evidently not: in response to Cooper’s call, he has so far managed only vapid words about trying to “bring peace and stability” to Syria and beyond, and somehow making sure “there are worthwhile jobs and stronger economies there”. If there was any shred left of the progressive, “modernising” politician who wanted to avenge the idea of the “nasty party” and take on the uglier aspects of Labour’s record, this was arguably his moment. The case for an act of principled leadership was glaring. But on the barren political ground left by his predecessors, he flunked it.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#160 Post by Alan H » September 4th, 2015, 12:35 am

The UK’s stance on the refugee crisis shames us all
Shame on your country, that’s something Germans have long lived with. The British tell only gallant tales about ourselves. Now David Cameron has shamed us all, his nasty party turning our reputation nasty.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#161 Post by animist » September 4th, 2015, 1:55 pm

the estimable Emma Waghorn (aka Emma Woolgatherer) posted on Facebook her recent letter to her MP about the crisis. I am sure she would be happy if anyone adapted her email in order to contact their own MP, and I have done this already:

Email sent to Zac Goldsmith: "It was good to hear David Cameron say today that "Britain is a moral nation and we will fulfil our moral responsibilities". It was good to hear him talking about Britain taking and continuing to take thousands of Syrian refugees. However, the size of the crisis is now so great, with so many people being displaced not only from Syria but also from Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and elsewhere, that fulfilling our moral responsibilities must include taking in significantly more refugees. Yes, we need a comprehensive solution, to reduce the numbers of people who are forced to flee their homelands, but the humanitarian crisis requires a direct and immediate response. At the moment, according to the UNHCR, 80% of the world's refugees are hosted by developing countries. Developed countries have a moral obligation to do much more, and the UK must at least do its fair share within Europe, and not use its island status as a way of pushing responsibility onto other countries. In particular, there needs to be a legal way for refugees to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of claiming asylum.


Please encourage David Cameron to make good on his promise that Britain will fulfil its moral responsibilities. Please do all in your power to make sure that the UK steps up and offers immediate sanctuary to those refugees, a tiny proportion of the world's total, who are in Calais waiting for the opportunity to claim asylum here.

Yours sincerely ..."

Post Reply