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.
Message
Author
User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

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

Latest post of the previous page:

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 ..."

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#162 Postby Alan H » September 4th, 2015, 6:44 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
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#163 Postby Altfish » September 4th, 2015, 6:59 pm


My virus programme won't let me open that??

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#164 Postby Alan H » September 4th, 2015, 7:12 pm

Odd. It's Jon Snow's blog on the Channel 4 website.
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
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#165 Postby Altfish » September 4th, 2015, 7:35 pm

Alan H wrote:Odd. It's Jon Snow's blog on the Channel 4 website.

Thanks Alan, I'll try and find it via Channel 4 - later though

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#166 Postby Alan H » September 5th, 2015, 1:10 am

Austria and Germany open borders to refugees travelling through Hungary
German chancellor Angela Merkel said they could cope with a record-breaking influx of people this year without raising taxes.

But the chancellor repeated her call that the refugees should be distributed more equally across the EU member states, as part of a common strategy to cope with Europe’s unprecedented migration crisis.

“The whole system needs to be redesigned,” said Merkel, adding that tasks and burdens should be distributed more fairly.

The country is the EU’s biggest recipient of refugees from the Middle East and economic migrants from south-eastern Europe.

A record 104,460 asylum seekers entered the country in August, and the country expects about 800,000 refugees and migrants this year – four times last year’s level.

In light of the influx, the government plans to introduce a supplementary budget to free up funds for the refugees and to help towns in the frontline which are already struggling to pay for accommodation and fund medical care for the new arrivals.

“We won’t raise taxes. And we still have the goal of posting a balanced budget without taking on new debt,” Merkel told several local newspapers.


David 'call me Dave' Cameron may allow in up to 4,000 into the UK:
The prime minister has made clear that those who are to be brought to Britain are only to be the most deserving amongst the 4 million displaced Syrians living in UN-registered refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan.

To qualify for the main scheme under which only 216 people have arrived since March last year – known as the vulnerable persons relocation scheme – a refugee must not only have fled from their homes but must also have been a victim of torture or sexual violence, or be too elderly or disabled to survive in the camps. The UN puts forward “candidates” for the scheme but only British officials are empowered to make the final selection.

Cameron is unable to put a figure on how many will come under this scheme because there has be local councils in Britain willing to take responsibility for them. So few have volunteered so far, with only Bradford and one other unnamed authority being prepared to host them.

The problem is that until now the Home Office was only prepared to guarantee funding for one year, while those being given sanctuary are expected to stay for a minimum of five years. Sheffield, Manchester and Hull said last year they could not take part on that basis. Urgent discussions must now be held to resolve the problem.
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: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#167 Postby animist » September 6th, 2015, 10:46 pm

for anyone in or nearish London, there is a march next Saturday (12 September) on behalf of the refugees. 12 noon at Marble Arch, walking to Downing Street

http://stopwar.org.uk/events/stop-the-w ... -of-action

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#168 Postby Alan H » September 7th, 2015, 4:43 pm

An unfortunate headline: David Cameron: Britain will accept 20,000 refugees - live
David Cameron is speaking in the House of Commons now, first about the refugee crisis before he makes an important counter-terrorism statement.

The whole country has been deeply moved by the heartbreaking scenes over the last few days.

"We must use our head and heart by purusing a comprehensive approach to tackle the causes."

He has announced that Britain will assist the resettlement of 20,000 refugees in the UK over the next 5 years.

They will be granted a five year humanitarian protection visa.
So, 4,000 a year on average. From UN camps. Four London Underground tube trains worth a year.

You could get all 20,000 from one side of London to the other on the Metropolitan Line in just one hour.

Nigel Farage:
I'm disappointed that new Syrian refugees will not come as part of the UK's normal annual intake.
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#169 Postby Alan H » September 8th, 2015, 1:05 am

From David 'call me Dave' Cameron's speech today in the House of Commons:
We are proposing that Britain should resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over the rest of this Parliament. In doing so we'll continue to show the world that this country is a country of extraordinary compassion, always standing up for our values and helping those in need. So Mr Speaker, Britain will play its part alongside our other European partners but because we're not part of - this is important - the EU's border-less Schengen Agreement or its relocation initiative Britain is able to decide its own approach.
I need one of these:
Spoiler:
'Extraordinary fuckin' compassion' my arse.
Image
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

#170 Postby Dave B » September 8th, 2015, 11:55 am

Yeah, the Cam has just about reversed his position to show his insincere face. It was his, "No more immigrants," attitude that seems more honest.

Marvellous what changes one picture and a fear of public opinion can achieve!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#171 Postby Alan H » September 8th, 2015, 11:58 am

Dave B wrote:Yeah, the Cam has just about reversed his position to show his insincere face. It was his, "No more immigrants," attitude that seems more honest.

Marvellous what changes one picture and a fear of public opinion can achieve!
But he's given so, so little. It barely qualifies to be described as the bare minimum. A cynic might think this was planned all along: tell 'em we're not going to accept any, Ok, just a few then. OK, 20,000 over the next five years but only ones from UN camps... you get the drift. makes you seem all cuddly and compassionate and caring... Doesn't fool me.
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

#172 Postby Dave B » September 8th, 2015, 12:16 pm

Alan H wrote:
Dave B wrote:Yeah, the Cam has just about reversed his position to show his insincere face. It was his, "No more immigrants," attitude that seems more honest.

Marvellous what changes one picture and a fear of public opinion can achieve!
But he's given so, so little. It barely qualifies to be described as the bare minimum. A cynic might think this was planned all along: tell 'em we're not going to accept any, Ok, just a few then. OK, 20,000 over the next five years but only ones from UN camps... you get the drift. makes you seem all cuddly and compassionate and caring... Doesn't fool me.
Yes, I was aware of that aspect.

Also, as the man fron UNHCR said (paraphrased), "It costs much more to maintain one refugee in the UK than it does to give them what they need locally. Far better to give us the aid money, we can make it go much further."

Added to that, will there still be the drastic need for refuge from the fighting in Syria in five years time (unfortunately I feel the general conflict in the ME has a longer life than that.) Is Cameron hoping the queue will taill off in that time scale?

Politics, not humanity, rules again.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#173 Postby animist » September 9th, 2015, 11:36 pm

animist wrote:for anyone in or nearish London, there is a march next Saturday (12 September) on behalf of the refugees. 12 noon at Marble Arch, walking to Downing Street

http://stopwar.org.uk/events/stop-the-w ... -of-action
I intend to go this!

http://blogs.channel4.com/lindsey-hilsu ... fears/5529

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

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#174 Postby Dave B » September 11th, 2015, 3:58 pm

Much though I sincerely regret it I had to agree with a point made by Tory type Adam Holloway.

He, effectively, said that the current EU "policy" on migration is immoral. At the moment there is nothing to stop the migrants paying huge sums on a chance thst they will get a welcome somewhere in Europe. This keeps the much hated traffickers in (big) budiness, places most of them at risk to their lives and does not ensure that they will even be granted refugee status and a permit to reside.

It also ensures a great deal of money spent in emergency measures at the various borders, money that, properly used, could do better work.

A system of "filtering" employed as close to those countries where lives are at risk (not for economic migrants) with legitimate transport at reasonable cost (free if absolutely necessary) would save lives.

The corrolary must be that all non-EU migrants must undergo this process with no admission at all for those who do not.

Holloway's "immoral" aspect was to leave tge gates open, thus encouraging an almost continuous stream of migrants travelling in hope, but at risk to their lives.

I will also reiterate that even if tge ME conflicts stopped soon economic pressures, climate change etc. will ensure a continuing supply of people seeking a "better life". Europe's capacity to absorb dependant (initially at least) immigrants is not infinite. The migration problem must be viewed and planned over periods of not less than ten years, better 30 or more.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#175 Postby animist » September 14th, 2015, 9:09 pm

Dave B wrote:Much though I sincerely regret it I had to agree with a point made by Tory type Adam Holloway.

He, effectively, said that the current EU "policy" on migration is immoral. At the moment there is nothing to stop the migrants paying huge sums on a chance thst they will get a welcome somewhere in Europe. This keeps the much hated traffickers in (big) budiness, places most of them at risk to their lives and does not ensure that they will even be granted refugee status and a permit to reside.

It also ensures a great deal of money spent in emergency measures at the various borders, money that, properly used, could do better work.

A system of "filtering" employed as close to those countries where lives are at risk (not for economic migrants) with legitimate transport at reasonable cost (free if absolutely necessary) would save lives.

The corrolary must be that all non-EU migrants must undergo this process with no admission at all for those who do not.

Holloway's "immoral" aspect was to leave tge gates open, thus encouraging an almost continuous stream of migrants travelling in hope, but at risk to their lives.

I will also reiterate that even if tge ME conflicts stopped soon economic pressures, climate change etc. will ensure a continuing supply of people seeking a "better life". Europe's capacity to absorb dependant (initially at least) immigrants is not infinite. The migration problem must be viewed and planned over periods of not less than ten years, better 30 or more.

this is pretty disingenuous and confused, and the "leaving the gates open" argument has already been proven false by the brave decision of German Chancellor Merkel to take on large numbers of refugees. Thundril has already pointed out that the traffickers would be bypassed if there was a just system of processing and transporting refugees from the crisis countries to Europe, and I challenge you to claim that someone who has braved the present dangerous chaos cannot be in some sense a refugee; traffickers are a symptom rather than the cause of the migrant problem. As for the climate change problem, please do not use this as an argument for restricting asylum seekers; instead, vote for parties which are committed to ending this threat!

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

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#176 Postby Dave B » September 14th, 2015, 10:14 pm

animist wrote:
Dave B wrote:Much though I sincerely regret it I had to agree with a point made by Tory type Adam Holloway.

He, effectively, said that the current EU "policy" on migration is immoral. At the moment there is nothing to stop the migrants paying huge sums on a chance thst they will get a welcome somewhere in Europe. This keeps the much hated traffickers in (big) budiness, places most of them at risk to their lives and does not ensure that they will even be granted refugee status and a permit to reside.

It also ensures a great deal of money spent in emergency measures at the various borders, money that, properly used, could do better work.

A system of "filtering" employed as close to those countries where lives are at risk (not for economic migrants) with legitimate transport at reasonable cost (free if absolutely necessary) would save lives.

The corrolary must be that all non-EU migrants must undergo this process with no admission at all for those who do not.

Holloway's "immoral" aspect was to leave tge gates open, thus encouraging an almost continuous stream of migrants travelling in hope, but at risk to their lives.

I will also reiterate that even if tge ME conflicts stopped soon economic pressures, climate change etc. will ensure a continuing supply of people seeking a "better life". Europe's capacity to absorb dependant (initially at least) immigrants is not infinite. The migration problem must be viewed and planned over periods of not less than ten years, better 30 or more.

this is pretty disingenuous and confused, and the "leaving the gates open" argument has already been proven false by the brave decision of German Chancellor Merkel to take on large numbers of refugees. Thundril has already pointed out that the traffickers would be bypassed if there was a just system of processing and transporting refugees from the crisis countries to Europe, and I challenge you to claim that someone who has braved the present dangerous chaos cannot be in some sense a refugee; traffickers are a symptom rather than the cause of the migrant problem. As for the climate change problem, please do not use this as an argument for restricting asylum seekers; instead, vote for parties which are committed to ending this threat!
Could have been better structured. :wink:

Germany's decision to allow a large number of refugees in does not disprove the "open gate" theory, mrrely demonstrates that one country does not seem to be concerhed about it.

Or are they not? There seems to be a degree of second thinking going on in that region due to a larger number of refugees than was expected . . .

I also said that a system for processing, or perhaps pre-processing, migrants was needed - before they pay loads of money to traffickers and risk their lives. You seem to agree.

Any person fleeing a real danger to their life is a genuine refugee. Someone who pays out a lot of money and then risks their life on the chance they might make even more (disposable income) in Europe might seem a bit silly. In between there are those who want a better standard of life, better healthcare, better education for their kids etc. Sensible ambitions, but all three groups are "competing" since even the whole of Europe must have a limit to how many they can absorb per year.

Germany says that the immigrants are good for their economy, yet, admittedly about 30 years ago they had problems with the Turkish "guest workers" who could not integrate fully. That may have been partly due to prejudice, but that's another potential problem.

Perhaps I am wrong but you seem to be veiwing what will probably be a long term problem as a short term one.

There is still the moral question as to whether it is good to indicate that all migrants will be let in, thus encouraging more people to take the risk.

We will have to disagree on this I fear.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#177 Postby animist » September 23rd, 2015, 9:34 pm

Dave B wrote:
animist wrote:
Dave B wrote:Much though I sincerely regret it I had to agree with a point made by Tory type Adam Holloway.

He, effectively, said that the current EU "policy" on migration is immoral. At the moment there is nothing to stop the migrants paying huge sums on a chance thst they will get a welcome somewhere in Europe. This keeps the much hated traffickers in (big) budiness, places most of them at risk to their lives and does not ensure that they will even be granted refugee status and a permit to reside.

It also ensures a great deal of money spent in emergency measures at the various borders, money that, properly used, could do better work.

A system of "filtering" employed as close to those countries where lives are at risk (not for economic migrants) with legitimate transport at reasonable cost (free if absolutely necessary) would save lives.

The corrolary must be that all non-EU migrants must undergo this process with no admission at all for those who do not.

Holloway's "immoral" aspect was to leave tge gates open, thus encouraging an almost continuous stream of migrants travelling in hope, but at risk to their lives.

I will also reiterate that even if tge ME conflicts stopped soon economic pressures, climate change etc. will ensure a continuing supply of people seeking a "better life". Europe's capacity to absorb dependant (initially at least) immigrants is not infinite. The migration problem must be viewed and planned over periods of not less than ten years, better 30 or more.

this is pretty disingenuous and confused, and the "leaving the gates open" argument has already been proven false by the brave decision of German Chancellor Merkel to take on large numbers of refugees. Thundril has already pointed out that the traffickers would be bypassed if there was a just system of processing and transporting refugees from the crisis countries to Europe, and I challenge you to claim that someone who has braved the present dangerous chaos cannot be in some sense a refugee; traffickers are a symptom rather than the cause of the migrant problem. As for the climate change problem, please do not use this as an argument for restricting asylum seekers; instead, vote for parties which are committed to ending this threat!
Could have been better structured. :wink:

Germany's decision to allow a large number of refugees in does not disprove the "open gate" theory, mrrely demonstrates that one country does not seem to be concerhed about it.

Or are they not? There seems to be a degree of second thinking going on in that region due to a larger number of refugees than was expected . . .

I also said that a system for processing, or perhaps pre-processing, migrants was needed - before they pay loads of money to traffickers and risk their lives. You seem to agree.

Any person fleeing a real danger to their life is a genuine refugee. Someone who pays out a lot of money and then risks their life on the chance they might make even more (disposable income) in Europe might seem a bit silly. In between there are those who want a better standard of life, better healthcare, better education for their kids etc. Sensible ambitions, but all three groups are "competing" since even the whole of Europe must have a limit to how many they can absorb per year.

Germany says that the immigrants are good for their economy, yet, admittedly about 30 years ago they had problems with the Turkish "guest workers" who could not integrate fully. That may have been partly due to prejudice, but that's another potential problem.

Perhaps I am wrong but you seem to be veiwing what will probably be a long term problem as a short term one.

There is still the moral question as to whether it is good to indicate that all migrants will be let in, thus encouraging more people to take the risk.

We will have to disagree on this I fear.

well, I certainly agree that this is likely to be a long term problem, but I commend Merkel for her stand. Forget about the comments from me about "disingenuous" and "confused", since they were not intended to apply to you but to Holloway. Nevertheless, ISTM that the very fact of Merkel's brave and humane offer do indeed disprove Holloway's argument. Unless she or Germany reneges on it, then the refugees, at least many of them, are actually promised a home in Europe, so that the argument of false expectations is shown to be be bogus.

I must say that, with the greatly honourable exception of Thundril, I am disappointed, to say the least, with the lack of interest and commitment on this forum over what is one of the major issues of our time

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

Re: Migrants via the Tunnel

#178 Postby Dave B » September 23rd, 2015, 10:25 pm

I have to respect your viewpoint, animist, but we are all entitled to our own.

I will admit ti being, sort, ambivalent on these kinds of situations. Part of me wants to apply all the love and humanity that I possess to seeking a solution. However I am aware that I can only offer a small, compared to the needs, amount of money and my vote for anyone with a just solution, and the integrity to carry it out. Personally I could not take the physical participation in a public demonstration - I can barely make it to the shops some days.

So I am left with only those things that I have felt able to rely on to form my opinion over the past 50 years or so. This leads me to fonsider not the short term but a search for the long term solutions. I have learned, in a way, to look and work for things thst I will not live to see.

Yet, I feel the frustration that all of this is really mere academic discussion rather than anythingvthat will achieve future welbeing. Those who can take direct action, either as aid workers to the refugees or in public displays of sone form (that may or may not influence the politicians) may do so - what will words on this forum achieve beyound the bounds of this forum?

We seek mainly to state our position and defendbit, avfutike excercise in terms of what is actually needed. Do we influence a "chain reaction" of increasing opinion as some politicians might do? No, we talk, mainly perhaps, to clarify and reinforce our own positions so we may feel justified in them.

I have asked the question before, what real purpose do such forums as this serve? To support and bolster like thinkers, to recruit other members to our side? Can we use it to explore new avenues and offer them to a large audience? Not really, Alan comes closest to thisvwith the Nightingale Project, gaining plaudits from others - but still only a small effort compared to what is needed for tge present refugee crisis and that which might come in the next twenty or so years.

I can only treat this as an academic excercise or my heart will fail even faster than it is already doing. I can influence no-one with the power to achieve anything, I can give a little charity towards the aid they need, hoping it is well spent, that is about all.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 3 guests