Mediterranean Migrants

[Portland Bill]

Have we still got a Navy?, I wonder HMS Victory is serviceable.

Because of the government cuts,the Royal Navy have a grand total of ......23 ships!

So much for ruling the waves.

[The Gasbuster]

  

Typical flippant replies as expected. Increased search and rescue operations need to be undertaken along with specific migrant quotas from EU countries to help these people who are fleeing for their lives. These are people getting on a boat that might lead them to their death because they see no alternative.

Or you can wash your hands with it and say 'not my problem' I suppose.

 

Not true.

An article on Breakfast T.V. this morning about a teenager from Gambia, a relatively safe country.

He journeyed across Africa to get to Italy, because "he wants to be a professional footballer" .

 

Add cases like these, to the risk of jihadis hiding amongst the crowd, and we have a recipe for disaster.

[The Gasbuster]

Although you can add that it's easy to be progressive and generous as a small party not determining actual policy. And of course the manifesto desire to have an "Australian style" points based immigration system contradicts this generosity.

 

Australia's Tony Abbott gets his navy to tow migrant boats away from OZ to places like Papua New Guinea and Palau where they are effectively held in internment camps.

 

The unspoken truth - which is very sad for those caught in Middle Eastern war zones - is that no Western country really wants migrants from Muslim countries any more. Not in the light of the rise of militant Islamism. It's something all EU countries know, but none dare acknowledge.

 

Exactly.

[The Gasbuster]

I actually agree with the Daily Torygraph here: the only compasssionate way to deal with the problem in the short-term is to have an EU naval blockade of the Libyan coast, stopping all but authorised shipping from leaving port. An enhanced search and rescue operation is never going to pick everyone up who is prepared to risk it, and there are an estimated one million wannabe migrants queueing in Libya, with untold millions more ready to risk the trip if the EU were to make it easier.

 

Spot on again, R.R.

[TRL]

Genius Dave,I knew we could rely on you.

Oh but what happens when the quota is reached? Throw them back into the sea? Is that you plan Dave? Genocide?

I preferred it when you were offering a room.

Got Dave's room for the overspill.

Maybe anyone with a spare room should be forced to take them in... That will work...it will have to work as there are not enough houses being built.

Hope Dave's house is big.

Sad truth is many of these immigrants want to pick and choose which country they reside in when they flea their own country for whatever the reason. Now I have sympathy for those fleeing persecution but they don't get to choose which country they get to go to. As many may have noticed most of Europe has some sort of austerity measure in place.... How can we afford to foot the Bill for these population displacements? Let alone try and safeguard those who choose to potentially kill themselves through illegal migration. How can anyone be culpable for deaths in international waters. How can countries afford to pump billions into coast guard craft to help migrants in trouble or channel illegal immigrants into holding centres.... All when some of their own population are struggling to feed themselves.

Sorry charity begins at home. If there is money left over after you helped your own ppulation then fair enough.

It may sound harsh and it is very harsh because of the amount of lives lost. But you make your choices you live with the outcome. If someone comes to your help good for them... But do not expect it. If goverments plough money in to help the current problem they are inviting a even bigger influx in the future.... Then the problem scales massively

[And Its Smith]

Not true.

An article on Breakfast T.V. this morning about a teenager from Gambia, a relatively safe country.

He journeyed across Africa to get to Italy, because "he wants to be a professional footballer" .

 

Add cases like these, to the risk of jihadis hiding amongst the crowd, and we have a recipe for disaster.

Haha, you've found one case. Well done.

Are you sat at home with BCR singing "let them die, let them die, let them die".

So much compassion on this forum. Expect you would have turned Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany away during WWII.

[The Gasbuster]

Haha, you've found one case. Well done.

Are you sat at home with BCR singing "let them die, let them die, let them die".

So much compassion on this forum. Expect you would have turned Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany away during WWII.

 

Despicable comments, but then I would expect nothing else from you !!

 

Are you so dumb / blind that you cannot understand that word will get out should we "open the doors", as you suggest, and then 10 times the number will try migrating to Europe ??

 

Yes there are genuine cases, but not all of them.

 

What number do you suggest we let in, and when do you think this country will finally be overcrowded ?

 

When the population reaches 100 million, 200 million, 300 million ??

[chipdawg]

Hehe there's a germ of an idea there. That'll pay the isle of Man back for all those years of allowing people to dodge tax via accounts "based" there!!! Don't show your reply to Nige!!!

Ssssshhhhh! I'm hoping if we're nice to them they'll take Clarkson off our hands on a permanent basis, lock him in his lighthouse near Douglas and wait for coastal erosion to do its thing

[chipdawg]

TRL and Gasbuster have both made the point that there are a fair number of people on these boats that are not fleeing persecution. I absolutely agree and aside from the fact that there is no 'need' for them to lead relatively stable countries like Ivory Coast or Senegal (not that I envy their lives at all), those countries have a drain of able bodied, intelligent and sometimes well qualified individuals from their economies which surely only exacerbates the problem? The issue has to be addressed at source, not once the people have reached a boat. And pointing out that they are taking an unnecessary risk for a perceived personal gain doesn't make 700 people drowning less horrific an occurrence

We should also remember that this is a much bigger issue for the rest of Western Europe than it is for us. Spain, Italy and Greece are the ones having to deal with the ones who arrive and Germany, France and Sweden are more popular final destinations. Even taking aside membership or leaving of the EU, this is a genuinely European issue that requires a joined-up European response

[The Batman]

 

What number do you suggest we let in, and when do you think this country will finally be overcrowded ?

 

When the population reaches 100 million, 200 million, 300 million ??

 

Britain and most of Europe will end up looking like Mega City from Judge Dredd in order to cope with not just the numbers that arrive, but the children from those arriving, and their children, and their children etc etc. It's not just the housing they have to consider, it's the drainage from those homes, the flood plains they'll be building on, roads, schools, hospitals, transport links, it's just never ending.

 

 

Which is why I put in the opening post what can realistically be done.

 

I read somewhere (cant remember where, might have been the Guardian article) - that someone suggested we (Britain) pump billions more into African infrastructure so that they would not need to come here, but I'm pretty sure that for the last 30 years, numerous charities have already done this, but the money does not get to where it needs to go, it goes into the hands of the dictators and the leaders but never filters down. So we end up losing a fortune for the same result. - Their other suggestion was to budget for their arrival and pretty much build areas where these people can settle in England (did not make a suggestion as to where) - but either way, the British tax payer will be footing the bill for it again, so economically, we would lose a fortune of cash which I'm sure the tax payer would like spent elsewhere. - I also have no idea why it's Britain's sole responsibility. There was no mention of the other EU countries ploughing billions of their own cash in there.

 

Quick google search suggests that Africa's population is 1.1 billion. and Europe's is 742 million. Consider the size of Europe in comparison with Africa's vast landscape.

 

And of course, there is the issue of those in Syria and the Middle East, simply getting a boat across the Libya and then risking their lives on one of these ships for a simple ride into Europe, and if we're accepting everyone, no questions asked, they've made it onto mainland Europe to link up with their "brothers" that are already here. 

[chipdawg]

Britain and most of Europe will end up looking like Mega City from Judge Dredd in order to cope with not just the numbers that arrive, but the children from those arriving, and their children, and their children etc etc. It's not just the housing they have to consider, it's the drainage from those homes, the flood plains they'll be building on, roads, schools, hospitals, transport links, it's just never ending.

Which is why I put in the opening post what can realistically be done.

I read somewhere (cant remember where, might have been the Guardian article) - that someone suggested we (Britain) pump billions more into African infrastructure so that they would not need to come here, but I'm pretty sure that for the last 30 years, numerous charities have already done this, but the money does not get to where it needs to go, it goes into the hands of the dictators and the leaders but never filters down. So we end up losing a fortune for the same result. - Their other suggestion was to budget for their arrival and pretty much build areas where these people can settle in England (did not make a suggestion as to where) - but either way, the British tax payer will be footing the bill for it again, so economically, we would lose a fortune of cash which I'm sure the tax payer would like spent elsewhere. - I also have no idea why it's Britain's sole responsibility. There was no mention of the other EU countries ploughing billions of their own cash in there.

Quick google search suggests that Africa's population is 1.1 billion. and Europe's is 742 million. Consider the size of Europe in comparison with Africa's vast landscape.

And of course, there is the issue of those in Syria and the Middle East, simply getting a boat across the Libya and then risking their lives on one of these ships for a simple ride into Europe, and if we're accepting everyone, no questions asked, they've made it onto mainland Europe to link up with their "brothers" that are already here.

On the issue of Africa, given that Britain, amongst others, made billions from extracting resources (including the trade of human beings) from Africa then I can certainly see the sense in it. Those dictators and despots that are funnelling the money are generally part of dynasties that we Europeans installed. Now I don't for a minute believe that any solution to the issues in the 3rd world is as simple as that, or that you or I should feel 'guilty' about slavery because the sons should not be held accountable for the sins of the fathers, or that colonialism is the sole cause of poverty in Africa but there is a certain irony to these people 'following the money trail' from the their country to ours, all be it with a few decades delay

Anyway, I think the more compelling argument for European investment in Africa is economic; great strong markets in Africa and you create a new market for trade which is a lot cheaper and easier to access logistically than America or East Asia

[Welcome To The Jungle]

This is a symptom of the overall problem. Extreme poverty and a lack of development are to blame. Until we solve this they will keep trying to cross. 

[TRL]

This is a symptom of the overall problem. Extreme poverty and a lack of development are to blame. Until we solve this they will keep trying to cross.

We? I would suggest they and I mean they the massively corrupt governments where these people are coming from.

There is not much we as Europeans can do to stop they (middle eastern and African countries) in treating their citizens how they want. Maybe for each contract there is in place with a government in each of these countries x amount should be taken off of it for x amount of refugees hitting European shores?

Money is what talks, start sanctioning then the vipers at the top may start acting (probably not) but I thinking it is better than pumping money at a problem that we are in part causing by feeding greed.

[Monkeh]

The west helped destabilise the region,

If the west didn't do that they would of theirselves

Massive corruption with huge poverty and big risk to life's is the reason many would risk death to get out

I don't think a lot can be done,

[Esmond Million's Bung]

The west helped destabilise the region,

If the west didn't do that they would of theirselves

Massive corruption with huge poverty and big risk to life's is the reason many would risk death to get out

I don't think a lot can be done,

 

Come now Monkeh, I know it's close to an election but get it right, George W and labours Saint Tony Blair destabilised the area.

[The Gasbuster]

TRL and Gasbuster have both made the point that there are a fair number of people on these boats that are not fleeing persecution. I absolutely agree and aside from the fact that there is no 'need' for them to lead relatively stable countries like Ivory Coast or Senegal (not that I envy their lives at all), those countries have a drain of able bodied, intelligent and sometimes well qualified individuals from their economies which surely only exacerbates the problem? The issue has to be addressed at source, not once the people have reached a boat. And pointing out that they are taking an unnecessary risk for a perceived personal gain doesn't make 700 people drowning less horrific an occurrence

We should also remember that this is a much bigger issue for the rest of Western Europe than it is for us. Spain, Italy and Greece are the ones having to deal with the ones who arrive and Germany, France and Sweden are more popular final destinations. Even taking aside membership or leaving of the EU, this is a genuinely European issue that requires a joined-up European response

 

Very well put, Chip.

Let's see if Red Dave has a vile / unnecessary retort to your post ?!

[Monkeh]

Come now Monkeh, I know it's close to an election but get it right, George W and labours Saint Tony Blair destabilised the area.

it goes further back then those two,

[And Its Smith]

Despicable comments, but then I would expect nothing else from you !!

Are you so dumb / blind that you cannot understand that word will get out should we "open the doors", as you suggest, and then 10 times the number will try migrating to Europe ??

Yes there are genuine cases, but not all of them.

What number do you suggest we let in, and when do you think this country will finally be overcrowded ?

When the population reaches 100 million, 200 million, 300 million ??

Very well put, Chip.

Let's see if Red Dave has a vile / unnecessary retort to your post ?!

You'd expect nothing less from me? Why? When have I posted something similar on here?

I suggest that we, along with the rest of Europe, look at quotas per country. If the EU can help one million people then they should.

My post wasn't vile or unnecessary. And you didn't answer my questions about Jews after WWII.

We are part of the reason this is happening so we cannot wash our hands with it.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

it goes further back then those two,

 

Not the recent shit storm, that has been awakened in the area, they can rightfully claim the complete credit for that, bless em, but of course Iraq is much safer place now because Saint Tony told us so, i'd like to him have a holiday there.

[screech]

I always find the converts always try and re-write the history EMB.

It's always someone elses fault.

[Portland Bill]

Come now Monkeh, I know it's close to an election but get it right, George W and labours Saint Tony Blair destabilised the area.

Saddam Hussain had nowt to do with it, obviously!

[TRL]

Saddam Hussain had nowt to do with it, obviously!

Not really after the Iran war and the little foray into Kuwait. The area under him was pretty stable. Yes some nasty things happened but not on the scale of what has happened since he was removed.

In terms of the effect on the west, having Saddam there made our world a much safer place.

[PHILINFRANCE]

Not really after the Iran war and the little foray into Kuwait. The area under him was pretty stable. Yes some nasty things happened but not on the scale of what has happened since he was removed.

In terms of the effect on the west, having Saddam there made our world a much safer place.

 

I hate to say it, but I do believe you are right.

 

Over the past 30 years, I have spent a lot of time in the near/middle east and have always felt extremely safe there - certainly more safe walking in town at night than in the UK. 

 

The majority of these countries were ruled by dictators and the local citizens knew full well that, should they step out of line, they would be punished.

 

The world has moved on....

[Monkeh]

Not really after the Iran war and the little foray into Kuwait. The area under him was pretty stable. Yes some nasty things happened but not on the scale of what has happened since he was removed.

In terms of the effect on the west, having Saddam there made our world a much safer place.

the same can be said about colonel Gadaffi and trying to remove assad,

those people are evil but there were/are the lesser of two evils,

What we have now is so much worse

[TRL]

Phil and monkeh

Exactly. Do gooders got what they wanted I guess. Now these countries will choose their own destiny. As we know the strong and corrupt always rise to the top.

Grand job Bush Blair et al. Grand job.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Saddam Hussain had nowt to do with it, obviously!

 

Oh yes I forgot all of those weapons of mass destruction that he definitely had with 45 minute capability for their usage and that's the reason we went in, not regime change in fact Saint Tony was at pains to tell us before the invasion that regime change was not an option, that was until no WMD was found and he needed to pretend that regime change was plan b.

[Red-Robbo]

Not really after the Iran war and the little foray into Kuwait. The area under him was pretty stable. Yes some nasty things happened but not on the scale of what has happened since he was removed.

In terms of the effect on the west, having Saddam there made our world a much safer place.

Not exactly stable. Saddam created 2m Kurdish refugees. Many of them now living in Britain, Germany or Sweden.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Not exactly stable. Saddam created 2m Kurdish refugees. Many of them now living in Britain, Germany or Sweden.

 

Thing is Robbo, Blair promised in Parliament before the invasion that it wasn't anything to do with regime change, it was about WMD, WMD that didn't and never existed, all that was found was the stuff that us and the Americans sold him in the first place, but 9 years later one eyed labour voters still won't blame Blair, you have to think if he was still in charge they would actually still vote for him, which is unbelievable.

[Red-Robbo]

Thing is Robbo, Blair promised in Parliament before the invasion that it wasn't anything to do with regime change, it was about WMD, WMD that didn't and never existed, all that was found was the stuff that us and the Americans sold him in the first place, but 9 years later one eyed labour voters still won't blame Blair, you have to think if he was still in charge they would actually still vote for him, which is unbelievable.

Well poison gas is a WMD and that obviously did exist in the Iraqi arsenal at some time, but I take your point. Blair was talking shyte and I think that's pretty well established by more or less everyone now. (Ironically a recent poll found St Anthony to be less popular with Labour voters than Tory ones, but I digress)

Did you read that Chilcott is now not expected to report until 2016? Unbelievable! Do they think everyone will have forgotten the war?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Well poison gas is a WMD and that obviously did exist in the Iraqi arsenal at some time, but I take your point. Blair was talking shyte and I think that's pretty well established by more or less everyone now. (Ironically a recent poll found St Anthony to be less popular with Labour voters than Tory o

 

I bet Blair wished he had you and not that Burnley supporting ***** as his spin doctor at the time, even he never came up with that one, but anyway don't forget everybody knew he had the gas it wasn't a great surprise and was being dealt with by the UN weapon inspectors, but Bush and Blair didn't want that did they? and that's not the WMD we was looking for anyway guv, the question is  where did the components of that poison gas originally come from to start their own programme?, because they were originally all imported.