Off Topic Political Debate

I guess there are 6 billion people in the world who would fall into the definition of poverty as it is applied here - in fact probably almost that number in absolute rather than just relative poverty. Europeans from the 16th,17th, 18th and 19th centuries have probably blood or similar on their hands regarding just about all of them.
So how many of those 6 billion do we let into the UK? Just the loud and aggressive ones?
I love how the word stereotype is used. We must not stereotype immigrants but we can oil barons, large companies, the rich, the royals, politicians and worst of all bankers.

 

There's definitely some truth in that and not just on here. I think in order to have a more balanced discussion there needs to be more use the worst and best examples whilst accepting that not everyone in a specific category is the same. Mind, I'm as big a culprit as anyone...

 

There is turmoil in the world wherever you look of one sort or another, having appalling effects on the ordinary families. Although we can do what we can to help on a local level, there are decisions to be taken that are far beyond our powers, which is why we elect governments to manage things and try to find solutions on our behalf. It seems to me that these problems have become too large for even a country on its own to deal with, so cooperation between groups of them becomes even better, if not sufficient. The pull up the draw bridge and let others get on it with approach does not appeal greatly to me, I much prefer the joint action of states , however difficult it is for them to give ground and compromise to try and improve the lot of those who have no real life in their present circumstances.

 

Leo, the municipality of Engelskirchen (where I live) has been given just over 400 refugees (from the NRW distribution centre in Cologne). That is 400 balanced against our population of just under 20,000. So, about 50 citizens to every refugee. They are a very mixed bunch - about 30% are under age, more men than women - and yes, about a third are from Balkan countries such as Kosovo, Montenegro etc. countries which would normally be classified as safe. However all applications have to be processed and, even if they come from Kosovo, it will take up to 5 months before they can be sent back - some are of Gypsy origins and really are discriminated against in their homeland, so some may be allowed to stay. Just a reminder Leo, any application for asylum must be processed regardless of the nationality involved - there are even US. citizens who have refugee status in Canada ! From ours the largest numbers are from Syria, Afghanistan and Eritrea. There are a few from Nigeria and even one from China. My wife teaches German to some of them and has art courses with some of the children - children who can sometimes only draw pictures of destruction and dying. I know that some of them are not worth it - but what can you do ? Do you stop from saving a drowning man because he may, after all, turn out to be a criminal of some sort ? If Europe is taking in refugees in any capacity then they can only be shared around the EU. with numbers being conditional upon existing population size and resources. Any country refusing this has no place in the EU.

 

(replying to Dan above) We all do it. Actually I have no problem as it is often how discussions go in pubs. I also have no problem with loosely defining politics into left and right. I accept the argument that it is not scientific, rigorous, always accurate etc but it certainly helps conversation flow along and except for those who want a tight definition it generally serves. I also cannot understand why anyone objects to being "labelled" in that way. Sure nobody is likely to be pure left or right or even left or right on every issue. However if we hold certain values that others see as left or right it helps us undertand to a degree where we are on the political spectrum. Perhaps because I consider myself extreme left on issues like Trident and War and far right on the Economy I am not bothered. To stereotype an argument I personally see the left as far "nicer" than the right on people issues, welfare etc and the right as far more effective on financial issues. Others see it differently - but they are all just wrong

 

It is funny - you won't accept personal examples but then you give a one off example from where you live.
In today's society we know about "stranger danger". Ever since the world opened up and we stopped living in small local communities where there was no danger from strangers we have had to become ever more vigilant. Sad but true - the modern world of easy movement makes it easier for various crimes to occur - the internet has good and bad aspects.
Extend this to national and international stages and it is similar. A person coming from another country may be a lovely friendly potentially excellent member of a society or may be a bloodthirsty terrorist in waiting. They do not wear badges to tell us which group they belong to. As a result it is simple prudence to restrict movement of newcomers until you find out more about them and try to assess them and their motivations. Nobody ever said that any country should endanger its own citizens to speed up or allow unfettered access. We have no real mechanism for dealing with mass migration - it is a relatively new phenomenon. The scale of previous mass movements of perhaps Huguenots or Jews had limitations and was of a different scale. I come back to the point that there are 6 billion people who could want to up and move. Even the kindest people would admit that was beyond any coping so we need to think while we are "only" talking of hundreds of thousands or a few millions. Asylum seekers and economic migrants need to be stopped at entry and prevented from moving on until they are properly investigated. If all EU countries have to contribute to the cost of that rather than the cost to society of arbitrary migration then for me it makes sense.

 

Have to defend ourselves!!!

 

Take that attitude and I'd have to say I want out of that EU. I do believe in the EU but not as the overall sovereign and certain issues such as border control, taxation, etc. remain sovereign state matters not to be dictated by the EU. I believe the difference between the EU approach and mine is that of accepting the problem. With anything I believe in looking for root cause and treating that rather than patching up the effects. To this extent crime treatment through education and prevention, migration through removing push factors from points of origin, health through education and lifestyle + capture mechanism to deal with what can't be prevented, unemployment through economic growth and provision of opportunities rather than benefits. You can call that right wing, I call it enlightened and beneficial to society....

 

Agreed and it has happened here on all sides of the arguments

Of course if you label me you don't know 'me'....

Sadly we live a world where this goes on all the time... shame on many sides of the print media for fuelling it too .... look what some newspapers are doing to Corbyn.

For example I happen to know that Corbyn and others were instrumental in bringing all sides to the table in Northern Ireland. There is a photo circulating amongst certain groups on FB of him walking with Adams, McGuinness and others.. some years back.... and of course the nasty comments getting posted by all and sundry.. as a smear of him now as Labour leader... and he is anti-violence and worked to stop it.... but is it portrayed like that ? no....[/QUOTE]

 

Britain already has control of its own borders Aberdeen - and every person claiming asylum has to be processed as such, regardless which country they have come from. The EU. is not a piece of cake where you can choose the best bits and leave the rest, Britain profits from open borders and the free market, it also profits from the amount of EU. finances in the city of London, but there are also obligations, and this is one of them.

 

As long as we control our border and migration across it I have no problem. I do have a problem with any quota that anybody would look to impose which would compromise our ability to filter who enters based upon our own security and values.

 

Re - Borders

If a refugee gets temporary status in France for example... I think they can travel to Spain say.. but not the UK?

 

It's a complicated issue Yorkie. We recently had a family here from Kosovo who had already applied for asylum in Norway. This did not stop them from travelling to Germany and then filing a second application - which was refused but only after a wait of about 5 months. Apparently every application has to be dealt with via the normal channels (even if it's obviously a multiple one as in this case). And what was so weird was that the father decided that Norway was too cold for them !

 

But what does filtering mean ? That you can filter out the economic migrants from those who really are in danger.....or that you can screen those who may have links to terrorism etc. Are you proposing that someone else filters out the deserving from the undeserving cases ? That other countries go through this process and then send the 'good' ones to Britain ?

 

Filtering means just that filtering. We never signed up for the Shenghen for just this reason. If you get on a train plane boat without having the right of entry through qualification be that genuine refugee or permitted migrant expect to be turned back. If the Shenghen block restrictions on entry are too lax and an inordinate number of non qualified migrants are attempting to get into Britain then expect the shutters to come down further. Either one accepts proper vetting which is fair to genuine migrants, genuine refugees and citizens or one goes for a free for all that inevitably leads to collapse. Deep down you can't disagree.... Regarding who does the filtering I would suggest a common set of criteria are set and border staff in all countries are trained properly to deal with it. Only if consensus is achieved and training and implementation rigorous can you open the internal borders fully.

 

Unless David Cameron is unbelievably clever and holding a pack of playing cards up his sleeves to surprise us later I have to wonder if he is one of the most crass negotiators we have had since Neville Chamberlain.

He appears have presented the EU with 4 demands - three of which are a bit like "we want to continue to speak English" and which of course he will get. The fourth is for immigrants to be denied benefits for 4 years on coming into the UK - which he is highly unlikely to get. At best it appears he could be given some sort of face saving fudge to try to help him in the referendum. What a rubbish deal that would be.

Why did he not go with 25 enormous demands to shake the Europeans to the core - they might then have given him his 4 easily together with one or two others that he has not even asked for. Can anyone seriously believe he has negotiated well?

 

There is no guarantee that he will get the other 3, whilst I respect that the EU. is a multi currency block I do not see why the EU. should permanently ignore the privileges of the City of London. The 'City' functions as more of a centre for tax dodging and money laundering than Switzerland and Monaco combined - I will be very disappointed if the EU. does not push through a 'financial transactions tax' (Tobin Tax) to include London.

 

The fiddling centre of Europe is in Brussels, there is so much done by the burocrats of it the accounts are never signed off

 

as well as the bureaucrats!!

 

I will be surprised if Cameron does not get the easy 3. If they were to be refused a UK exit is a near certainty in my guess and not many in the EU want that